Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Student Support

Patrick Mercer: What plans she has to consult the National Union of Students over the new system of student support.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning met Owain James, the president of the National Union of Students, in the summer to discuss student finance. A review of student finance is now under way. We plan to consult on any proposal for change and, naturally, would expect the NUS to respond and contribute.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her reply. This is certainly the most emotive issue among my constituents in Newark and Retford who are involved in further education. Although a review is welcome, I see no evidence so far of consultation with the NUS, Universities UK and even the teachers' unions, on top of which there is confusion about the timing. May I beg for greater transparency? Let us have evidence at least of the open government of which we hear so much and see so little.

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair. We have made the principles of the review clear, and no one in the higher education world or the student body thinks that they are not free to send us their views; they have being doing that in great numbers. When we have proposals, we will publish them and then we will begin a proper consultation exercise. As we have said, the results of the review will be available early in the new year, which is roughly where we are, so it should not be too long from now.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the Secretary of State share my surprise, as an ex-president of the NUS, at the gall of the Opposition, who tried to shut down the NUS, in talking to us about consulting it? Will she please bear it in mind in the review that the NUS also represents students in further education, which is a vital stepping stone for many of our constituents who are still excluded from the higher education that they are capable of attaining, to the benefit of the community and the economy?

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. We have noted that the Opposition's views on education unions have changed a great deal in schools, as well as in higher and further education. She makes a valid point. When we talk about student finance, we often restrict our comments to people in full-time study between the ages of 18 and 21, who represent fewer than 50 per cent. of those who study. That has always been the case. She will know that, in the Labour Government's first four years, we spent resources to help part-time and mature students, and I assure her that in our on-going work—not only in the review, but in funding adult learning—we will not forget that incredibly important body. The number of students studying part-time in their mature years is likely to grow, not shrink, in the years ahead.

David Rendel: I declare an interest in that I have three sons in the student age group.
	Given that the Secretary of State has already done two U-turns in the student finance proposals that she has leaked to the press, must she not give a much better answer than the wishy-washy one that she just gave when she said that the proposals will be made some time in the new year, especially as many thousands of students are currently trying to make up their minds about whether they should go to university this year or next year, when they might get a better financial deal?

Estelle Morris: I take the point, and we will publish our recommendations, or our thoughts and ideas, in due course. We have also made it clear—I am glad of the chance to clarify this important point—that we do not envisage major changes for entry in 2002, and I encourage all those who are considering applying to enter higher education to do so. The figures published only yesterday by higher education institutions show either a 5.4 or a 5.5 per cent. increase in the number of students starting to study this year. When they started in October, we had already announced that we were looking at student finance. I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. Students who start their studies this year need to know what their situation will be in September. We have talked about that, and we will make it clear again that they should apply. We do not envisage any significant change in the method of student finance for those who apply to enter this year and start in the next academic year.

School Autonomy Criteria

James Purnell: What criteria she will use to determine whether schools have earned increased autonomy.

Stephen Timms: The criteria will relate to two school characteristics—first, performance and, secondly, school leadership. On leadership, we will work closely with Ofsted, and I will provide the House with a draft consultation document on the detailed criteria before the Education Bill leaves the House.

James Purnell: I thank the Minister for that answer. May I draw his attention to schools, such as Alder High in my constituency, that do not perform outstandingly in terms of absolute results and league tables but do very well in terms of value added and that are rapidly improving? Will he explain how such schools, which would particularly benefit from the extra freedoms under the provisions for earned autonomy, will be able to earn that autonomy?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our aim is to establish a modern, effective comprehensive system that commands the confidence of every community in the country, building on the extra investment that we are making in schools. We want successful schools and teachers to lead a wave of reform, and our view is that giving them greater freedom, as will happen under the earned autonomy provisions, and removing some of the current constraints, will enable them to do so.
	As my hon. Friend says, it is important that the opportunity should be available to schools in the whole range of local circumstances. In the consultation, we certainly intend to propose referring to the newly available value-added data to ensure that schools such as his have that opportunity, along with schools in other parts of the country.

Phil Willis: Does the Minister accept that the concept of earned autonomy is insulting to the vast majority of Britain's schools that deliver quality results year after year? He refused to provide clear criteria in the Education Bill that we are considering, so may I suggest the criteria that we should use? If a school is not in special measures, or not showing serious signs for concern, it should automatically have earned autonomy.

Stephen Timms: No, I do not agree with that suggestion. It is right that we look to our most successful schools and teachers to lead the next wave of reform in education. If we had taken the hon. Gentleman's advice, we would not have had, for example, the literacy and numeracy strategies. We intend to set the criteria so that about 10 per cent. of schools will qualify for earned autonomy in the first instance. We will see how things go from there, but it is important that we look to our most successful schools to take the reforms forward and pioneer the innovations that we shall then want to apply throughout the whole system.

Gwyn Prosser: Most of us are pleased to support and accept more autonomy for our local schools, but is my hon. Friend aware of the problems caused by some foundation schools that set their own admission criteria, especially in areas such as Kent, where selective education is in place? What plans does he have to help to sort out the mess caused by Tory Kent county council, whose failure to look ahead and plan means that pupils in Aylesham village and other parts of my constituency are denied places in secondary schools in September?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend knows that we have taken the view that decisions about whether there should be changes in the selective nature of admission arrangements in some parts of the country, including Kent, should be made by parents locally. He will also be aware of the arrangements that we have made for that.
	I reassure my hon. Friend that the provision for earned autonomy is certainly not about reintroducing anything like the old grant-maintained schools that were introduced by the previous Government. For example, there will not be any extra money for schools with earned autonomy. As to changes to admission arrangements, our view is that they are best dealt with locally.

Patrick McLoughlin: What powers will the schools with extra autonomy have that grant-maintained schools did not have?

Stephen Timms: We have proposed in the Bill that the extra freedom should be in two areas. The first is over the curriculum and the second is over teachers' pay and conditions. There is, of course, the possibility that we shall want to extend that list in due course in the light of experience, but that would require additional primary legislation. For now, we are sticking to those two areas.

Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not have read the Bolton Evening News this week. If he had, he would have seen headlines to the effect that schools across Bolton between them have banked more than £5 million as they wait for a rainy day. Each has a genuine reason for keeping the money in the bank, but would it not be better to bank the money centrally so that the cash flow could continue? If that experience has been replicated across the country, billions of pounds must have been banked. The money is not being used for the purpose for which it was designed, namely education.

Stephen Timms: That is a matter for governors to decide. I have, sadly, missed the latest issue of the newspaper that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I think that he will accept that schools have enjoyed great gains from their ability to make their own decisions about how to allocate their resources. They can decide their own priorities on issues such as maintenance and repair work. It is right that the resources are used for the benefit of children in each school and that they should be applied to that end. If there are concerns, I hope that the governors in the schools involved will ensure that the resources are applied properly.

Graham Brady: The Opposition strongly support increased autonomy for schools, but what confidence can schools and parents have that the criteria will be open, clear and transparent when the Government persist in abusing their majority in the House, as they did this morning to prevent proper debate and scrutiny of the Education Bill? On Tuesday, the Committee lost 11 clauses because they were not debated—and four more this morning—because of the application of an absurd timetable by the Government, who use knives to prevent discussion of the important parts of the Bill while allowing time for those that no one wants to talk about.

Stephen Timms: I am mystified by the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government offered the Opposition an additional three hours of debate in Committee on Tuesday. We were keen to continue the discussion beyond the time that we actually took. We offered an extra three hours, but the Opposition refused them.

Information and Communications Technology

Tony Cunningham: What progress is being made to equip schools with resources in ICT.

Ivan Lewis: The Government are investing more than £1.8 billion in information and communications technology in schools. Some 97 per cent. of schools are now connected to the internet and there is a computer for every seven secondary school pupils and every 12 pupils in our primary schools. Before Christmas, the Prime Minister launched curriculum online and only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £100 million to help equip teachers with laptops.

Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for his answer. I have certainly noticed the huge difference that extra information technology resources have made in many schools in my constituency. However, as we all know, computers are only as good as the people who use them. What is being done to improve the training of teachers, which is of paramount importance? Are there plans to increase the number of IT assistants, who also do a tremendous job in our schools?

Ivan Lewis: I agree that it is essential that teachers have both the skill and the confidence to use the most up-to-date technology to ensure that pupils get access to the highest possible quality education. The Government have a proud record on training teachers in the use of the most up-to-date technology. Over the past three years, we have provided training for teachers through the new opportunities fund. Nearly 350,000 teachers in England have signed up for that training and more than 160,000 have completed it. A survey in October 2001 indicated that 73 per cent. of teachers feel confident in their use of the most up-to-date technology.
	On trained technicians, the funding that the Government provide under the national grid for learning programmes can be used by schools specifically for technical support. In November last year, we launched a technical support website to provide advice and information to help schools develop appropriate approaches to managing and organising technical support.

Bob Spink: In recognising the value of the digital curriculum, does the Minister also recognise the great danger inherent in allowing the BBC free rein to use licence fee payers' money to provide the digital curriculum outside any education controls, checks and balances? Will he agree to meet the industry to discuss how the checks and balances can be brought to bear on the delivery of the digital curriculum?

Ivan Lewis: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that we have to get the issue right. However, there have been meetings with the industry, and I pay tribute not only to the BBC, but to the industry for their contribution in that respect. Before the BBC gets the go-ahead to produce its curriculum digital service, it will be required to submit its proposals to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for formal consultation and approval. We are in constant dialogue with the industry and are delighted that both it and the BBC have entered into a partnership with the Government in this most imaginative and exciting way.

Stephen Hepburn: The Minister will know that South Tyneside has one of the highest unemployment levels in the country, so it is vital to equip kids with new technology skills. Is he aware that South Tyneside has identified a major shortfall in IT provision in the education development plan? Will he take special note of that case and investigate it so that the kids in South Tyneside do not lose out?

Ivan Lewis: I am more than willing to respond positively to my hon. Friend's request, and if he informs me of the details of any issue to be addressed in South Tyneside, I will look into it. There is no doubt that South Tyneside will have had its fair share of the significant resources that the Government have made available for the use of up-to-date technology, but I am willing to look at that issue.

Primary Schools

Siobhain McDonagh: How the Government intend to improve primary schools to promote standards of education for 11 to 14-year- olds.

Estelle Morris: As a result of the national literacy and numeracy strategies, more pupils are leaving primary school with the skills that they need to access and benefit from secondary education. Our key stage 3 national strategy aims to help those who are just below the expected level to catch up quickly with their peers. Secondary and primary schools, working together, can support those pupils with summer literacy and numeracy schools, bridging units and catch-up programmes.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has she considered how parents can be involved in improving standards? Many of the children who need the most help have parents who themselves feel alienated from the education system, and who desperately want to assist their children but do not know how to do so. How can we get them involved?

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Nothing can replace good teaching as a means of raising standards, but the combination of good teaching and support from home and family is a formula that can work with every child in the country. That is why it is right to address the needs of parents. I pay tribute to the imaginative work of so many of our schools in making links with parents, including those who are the most difficult to reach.
	The Government's commitment to raising standards is evident from the fact that during the National Year of Reading, the National Year of Mathematics in 2000 and Science Year, which is this year, much of our effort is about making parents feel confident that they have a role to play. The message from us all, which is not political, is that those parents who did not succeed at school and who do not have qualifications or a degree can play a full part in their children's education. Every parent can play a role, and all the partners in education—not least the Government but mainly schools—have a responsibility to try to make it as easy as possible for them to play that role.

Andrew Turner: Does the Secretary of State think that it would help to improve primary schools and, for that matter, secondary schools if the Liberal Democrats' proposals to undermine the Catholic education system and, indeed, many Church of England schools, by preventing them from selecting on the basis of faith, were implemented? Does she agree that it would be better to leave good schools to get better and poor schools to become good than to mess about with their admission policies?

Estelle Morris: There's a question. In this job, a lot of research evidence lands on my desk, but I have never yet seen any relating strength in literacy and numeracy to religious belief. I suppose that it may emerge at some point. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) knows that my views on religious education differ from his, and I am more in agreement with the comments that have just been made.
	The role of Churches in education goes back a long way, and if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) had wanted to, he could have pointed out that hundreds of years ago, Churches were making sure that the poor could read and write when the state had not accepted its responsibility for doing so. I pay tribute not only to faith schools but to all schools for raising literacy and numeracy standards. Just to be absolutely clear, I do not think that people who attend a church have a better chance of being successful in reading and writing or of higher achievement at key stage 3.

Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant contribution that we can make to improving performance in secondary schools is to improve performance in primary schools? May I draw her attention to Henwick primary school in my constituency where I have been a school governor for 16 years? The school struggled along for many years, starved of resources, but the education action zone has provided laptop computers for all the staff, which has made them more efficient, and targeted more resources at the school, allowing it to reduce class sizes at key stage 2. That means that it has the most improved performance of any primary school in the education authority area. Is not that testimony to the investment that we have made in primary schools? Should not we now move on to secondary schools and achieve the same?

Estelle Morris: I am happy to pay tribute to the school in my hon. Friend's constituency and, indeed, to his personal support for that education action zone. The good news is that the story is repeated in thousands of primary schools throughout the country. Every Member will have similar stories to tell about the achievement of primary schools. Secondary schools are having to rethink completely what they do with year 7 students because of the improvement in standards. That is the best problem that secondary schools could have to face—how to adjust teaching because the quality of children and their learning is better than it has ever been.
	We are not there yet, and I do not wish to sound complacent. For every child who gets to year 7 without the basic skills needed to access the secondary school curriculum, an opportunity is lost. The statistics show that if someone has not conquered basic skills by 11, the chances of them doing so thereafter and getting five A* to C grades at 16 are not good, which is why we must continue with that work. I am delighted with the progress.

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady said that she does not want to sound complacent, in which case I invite her to read Hansard tomorrow. Is not having enough teachers the first step towards improving standards both in primary schools and for 11 to 14-year-olds? In that context, has she read reports about the head teacher in Fareham who said that the situation is so bad that he devotes two days a week simply to recruitment and has set up a stall in his local Sainsburys in the hope of attracting an ex-teacher or two? Or has she heard about the head teacher of a school in Cambridgeshire who said:
	"there is a lot of papering over the cracks going on . . . one head was heard to say that if it's upright and breathing, appoint it"?
	The situation is desperate. Is the right hon. Lady not just a little ashamed to be presiding over it?

Estelle Morris: I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are so few teachers in Wandsworth that he had to go in and help out. We could have a long debate about how that has affected the quality of learning for children in that school, but I hope that he enjoyed his three-day sojourn and I welcome him back. Seventeen more years and he will catch up with my experience in the classroom, but never mind.
	The fact that there are 12,000 more teachers than in 1998 is a tribute to the Government's investment in recruitment and retention. There is no getting away from that figure. There is an issue about teacher recruitment and retention; some of our secondary schools have serious problems, especially in the shortage areas of maths, design, science, English and modern foreign languages. Of course that is the case, but it is also true that there are more teachers than there have ever been before.
	The hon. Gentleman should engage in a proper debate about the dilemma of staffing our schools and how we square the statistic that there are more teachers than there have been for more than a quarter of a century with the fact that there is a real shortage, as well as a perception of shortage. We are dealing with that and have already talked about remodelling the profession, taking burdens off teachers and seeing how we can better use people who do not have qualified teacher status. That is the debate, and those will be the solutions to the historic problem of staffing our schools effectively—not quoting the odd school here and there and offering anecdotal evidence.

Damian Green: If the right hon. Lady wishes to discuss my enjoyable time in Southfields this week, I should point out that the children awarded me seven or eight out of 10 for my teaching skills in the lesson that I taught yesterday. I am not sure that teachers would award her such a high mark for her performance.
	The right hon. Lady dismissed the head teachers' experience of teacher shortages, but perhaps she will listen to local education authorities instead. Kingston upon Thames surveyed teachers who had left the profession. The main reason for leaving was the work load, and the report said that a significant factor in that was
	"Frustration felt by teachers over the large amount of paperwork, established through Government initiatives."
	Does the right hon. Lady recognise that her Department is not providing a solution to teacher vacancies, but is a large part of the problem as it is causing them?

Estelle Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not teaching the children of Southfields maths; the fact is that there are 12,000 more teachers than in 1998. As long as he refuses to accept that—[Interruption.] There are 12,000 more teachers, which means that, no matter how many have left, more have joined the profession; that is what 12,000 more means. There are more teachers now than there were three years ago; the hon. Gentleman must accept that. He wants me to repeat what I have said when he offers anecdotal evidence. Yes, there are problems; some head teachers have to spend far too much time looking for teachers and there are far too many supply teachers in our schools. I repeat what I have said on previous occasions: I would rather that head teachers spent that time raising standards.
	The real issue is that because of the action that this Government have taken, there are more teachers than ever before. There is a real increase this year in the number of teachers going into teacher training and more teachers are training to be maths teachers. There are more teachers today teaching our children in our schools than in 1998. That is the reality, but there is still a problem. The solution to that problem is not about sending teachers fewer pieces of paper, but about how we can enable them to do the things that they know are good that have emanated from the Government, which are about target setting and pupil-level support, while getting other staff in with a different range of skills to support them in doing that. I say to the House and to head teachers that sending teachers less paper will neither raise standards nor satisfy them of our ability to give them the support that they need to do the job.

School Sport

Andy Reed: What steps she is taking to improve the level of participation in competitive school sport in the east midlands.

Ivan Lewis: We have already funded almost 500 school sports co-ordinators nationally to assist families of schools to deliver after-school competitive sports. Thirty co-ordinators are in post in the east midlands covering 204 schools. Competitive games are a compulsory part of the national curriculum for pupils aged between five and 14 and are an option for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that while school sports co-ordinators are a fantastic success, by the time we produce the 1,000 or so that we need throughout the country, the current funding stream will end? Will he assure the House that he is doing everything that he can to ensure continued core funding for school sports co-ordinators, and also to ensure that at least two hours of sport is undertaken by children during core curriculum time? If we do not do that, we will have a nation of couch potatoes. We have already seen obesity increasing among children. School sports co-ordinators offer a fantastic chance to make a difference. Will he assure me and the House that they will be funded for the long term?

Ivan Lewis: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long track record of passionately arguing the importance of school sport and physical education. He has rightly been a powerful advocate of this important part of a child's educational experience. I can give him and the House a cast-iron guarantee that the continued and expanded funding of school sports co-ordinators will be considered as part of the 2002 spending review. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Treasury would allow me to say anything different at this stage. We are consulting on how we can ensure that the Government's commitment to two hours of high-quality physical education and school sport happens in practice. One issue that we will consider is the whole concept of that being part of, or outside, the school day. That will feature in the consultation process.

Andrew Robathan: I am not sure whether the Minister is old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s, but many of us in the House can, including, I think, the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I am sure that she is much younger than me.
	In the 1970s and 1980s, competitive school sport was undermined by the dogma of Labour education authorities. [Interruption.] It is no good the Minister addressing the matter in such a way, as he obviously does not remember. Will he now pledge that any local education authority that says that we must not have competitive school sport will be brought into line by the Government? It was Labour dogma that destroyed competitive school sport in the 1970s and 1980s.

Ivan Lewis: The comments about my right hon. Friend's age were disgraceful and unforgivable. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the Conservative party was in government from 1979 onwards and that it was the Conservative Government who forced schools to flog off playing fields to pay for basic repairs to schools, which we have funded properly since we came to power. We have spent millions of pounds and we plan to spend a further £7.8 billion on school buildings. As a result of the Government's commitment to giving schools resources, schools no longer need to flog off playing fields. Alongside the legislation that we have introduced, that means that schools have more opportunity to enable their pupils to participate in competitive sports.
	Events that the hon. Gentleman mentioned had nothing to do with dogma or ideology and everything to do with lack of resources and forcing schools to flog off basic facilities.

Examination Results

Roger Casale: What recent assessment she has made of the attainment rates of GCSEs grade A* to C.

Stephen Timms: The results published on 20 November show that 50 per cent. of 15-year-olds gained at least five good GCSEs this year, compared with 49.2 per cent. last year—an increase of 3.7 percentage points since the targets were set in 1997. We are delighted that the 50 per cent. mark has been reached a year early.

Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating Wimbledon college in my constituency on increasing the number of students who received a grade between A and C at GCSE from 46 per cent. to 57 per cent? Does he agree that the individual variations in schools' performance scupper the argument that improved standards are achieved through easier exams? If that were the case, the impact would be the same on all schools. We should recognise that improvements in schools occur as a result of the dedication and hard work of teachers, students, support staff and parents. We should reward best practice in schools such as Wimbledon college and ensure that it spreads to other schools.

Stephen Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad to join him in paying tribute to the achievements of Wimbledon college. Each year, as improvements occur, some people claim that they are the result of easier examinations. That is not the case. We have an extensive monitoring programme through the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It shows that the difficulty of the syllabus and the performance of GCSE examination candidates have been broadly maintained not only in the past few years but over decades. Standards in public exams are more rigorously scrutinised today than in the past. It is right to commend the achievements of young people and schools that have enabled important and welcome progress.

Adam Price: The Minister will clearly be aware of the Department's recently commissioned research, which shows that attainment rates at GCSE level in coalfield communities lag considerably behind the national average. The Government have adopted a targeted approach to educational underachievement in urban areas; will they consider a similar approach to those problems in coalfield communities? Will the Secretary of State consider holding a joint ministerial summit with her colleagues in Wales and Scotland, where there is a similar pattern of underachievement in coalfield communities?

Stephen Timms: We are adopting a targeted approach across the country. We have introduced floor targets so that every school, wherever it is based, will be supported to secure at least 20 per cent. of students with five good GCSEs by 2004, rising to 25 per cent. by 2006. Wherever those schools are located, they will be supported to increase their achievement levels to that of the floor target, which will rise with time.
	Our excellent clusters approach targets parts of the country that are outside urban areas, for which excellence in cities is available, to tackle disadvantage and deprivation in rural communities.

Caroline Flint: I think that I am right in saying that the range of grades for GCSEs runs from A to G. Unfortunately, a lot of children get grades E, F or G, for which they do not think it is even worth bothering to turn up to the presentation ceremonies to receive their certificates. Can my hon. Friend assure me that we will consider a broader range of options for young people at 14, so that they are not forced into doing subjects that they do not feel motivated to do, ending up with qualifications that they do not feel will serve any purpose? I am talking about options on the more vocational routes, which I hope will keep young people learning and may lead them to keep learning beyond the age of 16.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would not want to denigrate the achievements of some youngsters in obtaining E, F and G passes at GCSE, and we have seen the number of children with no qualifications fall again this summer, which I welcome. But my hon. Friend is right in saying that we need to extend opportunities to young people beyond the age of 14. That is the intention that we set out in the White Paper and we are debating the matter in the Education Bill Committee at the moment. We shall shortly give further details of our proposals to extend opportunities and raise standards for young people beyond 14.

Further Education (Teaching Vacancies)

Mark Hoban: What recent meetings she has had with the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to discuss the shortage of (a) teachers and (b) lecturers in further education.

Margaret Hodge: We have had a number of meetings in recent months with representatives of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. Discussion at those meetings covered a wide range of issues about the further education sector, including teacher and lecturer shortages in some subject areas, and the initiatives that the Government have introduced to attract new staff into the profession and to reward and retain excellent FE teachers and lecturers.

Mark Hoban: Fareham college in my constituency is finding it very difficult to recruit staff because of a combination of lower pay and a heavier work load leading to poor morale for teachers and lecturers throughout the sector. It is finding it difficult to refill vacancies, and is having to advertise three or four times to find the right calibre of staff. It is not only the secondary sector in my constituency that is suffering. Will the Minister set out in detail what she is going to do to address the recruitment and retention crisis in the further education sector?

Margaret Hodge: The reason why the college in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has found it tough to recruit and retain excellent teachers in past years is the cuts in spending on further education that the college had to bear under the Conservative Government—12 per cent. in five years. That is part of the legacy that we have inherited. Since we have come into government, we have increased the amount of money available to FE colleges by 17 per cent. in real terms. Specifically to attract new teachers into the FE sector, we are introducing golden hellos, helping with teaching bursaries and looking at helping with student loan write-offs. As in the secondary and primary sectors, we acknowledge a problem, but we are the ones tackling it; the Conservatives were the ones ignoring it.

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Education and Skills interviewed three of the major teaching unions yesterday? Is she further aware of the changed atmosphere in the unions? There is a much more positive spirit, in terms of recruitment and of what they think the Government are achieving. On the other hand, a recent meeting with NATFHE flagged up some real concerns about recruitment into the FE sector. The Government rely on this sector, which covers the ages of 16 to 19, to deliver the sort of educational performance that we need for people who often miss out in the first phase of education. Will my hon. Friend take seriously the fact that something has to be done very quickly about recruitment?

Margaret Hodge: I am delighted that there are regular meetings between the Education and Skills Committee and the teaching unions, as there are between Ministers and those unions. I agree with my hon. Friend that the atmosphere is one of co-operation and working in partnership. Of course we take seriously the issue of recruiting and retaining high-quality staff in the FE sector. I think that we are the first Government to take the FE sector seriously at all. I hope that initiatives such as the teachers' pay initiative, involving more than £300 million over three years, will start to give some indication of how we want to raise the rewards to excellent teachers in the FE sector.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) raised in his supplementary question the issue of morale and its importance to retaining and recruiting teachers and lecturers. Is the Minister aware that the already low morale in that sector has been lowered still further by the impact on further education of the failure of the Government's individual learning account scheme?
	The Association of Colleges tells me that principals, teachers and lecturers have to deal with irate and frustrated students, many of whom are the mature and part-time returners referred to by the Secretary of State, who do not know what is going on, wrongly blame colleges and teachers for their experiences and threaten legal action against them. All that is distracting those in further education from what they should be doing.
	Will the Minister explain to the House and those in further education who are bearing the brunt of anger that should be directed at the Government what she intends to do about that failed scheme and when; how much her Department's overspend on it already runs to; and which part of her budget—schools, adult education, further education or higher education—will have to be cut to pay for it?

Margaret Hodge: I do not accept that morale in the FE sector is as low as the hon. Gentleman claims. I find in all my discussions with staff and college principals that there is huge confidence in the fact that we are investing real money in the FE sector and raising standards.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that when we discovered that there were genuine problems with the way in which the individual learning account scheme was operating, it was right to stop it. I also hope that had he been in our position, he would have taken a similar decision.
	We must get on with the job of sorting out and paying those people who are waiting for the money that they are owed, and we are doing that. We also have to sort out a proper scheme that will ensure that we can encourage learning among adults in the workplace, and we are doing that. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would have tackled the issue any differently had he discovered the problems that we have had. It would have been nice had the Conservatives, over their 18 years in government, done anything—anything at all—to encourage adult learners into such a scheme.

John Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the root of the problems of FE lecturer shortages is the Conservative Government's policy of incorporation, which in reality was backdoor privatisation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister will want to answer questions about the last Government. It is her Government who she has to worry about.

John Cryer: I was about to come this Government, Mr. Speaker. The key question we face is whether to inject a degree of democracy and accountability back into FE colleges. Owing to incorporation, the power of principals—or chief executives, as some of those with particularly bloated egos call themselves—became immensely concentrated and there are no checks and balances. That led to depressed wages, de-recognition of unions and deliberate attacks on the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—many trade union activists were targeted and shifted from their jobs. We need to reintroduce accountability—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.

Margaret Hodge: I agree that the introduction of incorporation had terrible impacts for sixth-form colleges in particular and the FE sector in general. I hope that, through the learning and skills councils, we are introducing better mechanisms to ensure that colleges in each locality can work together in the interests of learners in their area. I also hope that the new inspection regime, with Ofsted working with the adult learning inspectorate, is achieving better accountability on quality and standards for learners and the local community.

Recruitment and Retention (Oxfordshire)

David Cameron: If she will make a statement on recruitment and retention of primary and secondary school teachers in Oxfordshire.

Stephen Timms: The annual census showed that the vacancy rate for Oxfordshire was 0.4 per cent. last January compared with 1.4 per cent. nationally.

David Cameron: I thank the Minister for that reply, but if he reads the answer to the written question that I asked his Department he will see that in January 1997 there was just one vacancy, whereas in January 2001 there were 14. That is not an anecdote, but fact. Will the hon. Gentleman take two concrete steps to deal with the issue in the south-east: impose a moratorium on new circulars and paperwork to teachers and give all schools greater freedom to pay and reward staff?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about pressures on recruitment in his area, but I think that he will welcome the news that the disruption in schools that some predicted last term did not materialise. I think that he will welcome other encouraging signs too. For example, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the number of applicants for teacher training increased by a further 5 per cent. this year. That is the second successive increase after eight consecutive years of reductions. The long decline in recruitment for training has been reversed, which I think suggests good prospects.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Crown Prosecutors

Elfyn Llwyd: How many Crown prosecutors at each level of seniority there were in the post in each year since 1995; and if she will make a statement.

Harriet Harman: Rather than reading out the tables relating to the five grades of Crown prosecutor over the last six years, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I have arranged for the information to be put on the Law Officers website. I can summarise it by saying that in 1995 there were 2,218 Crown prosecutors, and in 2000 there were 1,922.

Elfyn Llwyd: How many prosecutors have been female, and how many have been members of ethnic minorities? What efforts are being made to increase recruitment in those groups?

Harriet Harman: I will supply the hon. Gentleman with the exact percentages, but I can tell him now that there are relatively more female and ethnic- minority lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service than in private practice. We welcome that, and want to build on it.
	One of the ways in which we attract women to the CPS is to provide much more flexible employment, and much more family-friendly terms and conditions, than they would find either in private practice or at the independent Bar. But we need to go further. We must not just recruit ethnic-minority lawyers at the basic level, but ensure that they move up the system and become higher-court advocates. I hope that they join the judiciary as well, so that we can play a part in its diversification.

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that Crown prosecutors take account of the interests of victims and their families, especially in prosecutions relating to traffic incidents?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too wide.

Road Offences (Cyclists)

Ben Chapman: How many cyclists were prosecuted for road offences in the last 12 months who had fines of over £500 imposed on them.

Harriet Harman: In the most recent year for which figures are available, more than 700 cyclists were prosecuted and 600 were found guilty. About 500 were fined, but none were fined more than £500.

Ben Chapman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend as dismayed as I am at the fact that cyclists nowadays seem to flout the law with impunity—riding through red lights, riding without lights, riding down footpaths, riding on pavements and riding in the wrong direction down one-way streets? Penalties exist, but are insufficiently applied. What could be done to rectify the problem of lawless cycling in general, and the specific problem caused by the failure of some authorities to issue fixed penalties?

Harriet Harman: The CPS is well aware that the law—including the criminal law—applies to cyclists as it applies to everyone else. If there is evidence that cyclists have committed a criminal offence, they should be prosecuted. I have given my hon. Friend the figures. He mentioned a range of offences; they are included in the 700 prosecutions that have taken place in the last 12 months.
	As my hon. Friend will know, two questions arise in relation to decisions whether to prosecute: is there enough evidence, and is a prosecution in the public interest? I am not aware that the CPS has ever said, "Oh well, it is just a cyclist, so although there is evidence we will not bother".
	I know that my hon. Friend is raising other issues with the police and the courts

Crown Prosecution Service

David Kidney: What guidance she gives to the Crown Prosecution Service on efforts to be made to trace defendants who fail to answer Crown court bail.

Harriet Harman: If a defendant who has been granted bail does not turn up in court, it is an offence under the Bail Act 1976. The CPS will apply to the court there and then for a warrant to be issued for the arrest of the defendant. The system for tracing defendants who fail to answer bail is the standard procedure for finding and arresting under a warrant. The court issues a warrant and the police trace and arrest the defendant.

David Kidney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. My question was inspired by a tragic constituency case in which a young man was knocked down and killed on the pavement by a motorist. When the trial date came, the accused, who had been granted bail, did not turn up and has not since been found. The two general issues that arise are whether to grant bail and the length of time that it takes to reach trial. However, when a defendant fails to appear, cannot the CPS and the police be much more proactive in the steps that they take to trace him or her? For example, the BBC "Crimewatch" programme helps to trace people before they are charged. Could it be used to help to trace people who have bunked off when they should be on trial?

Harriet Harman: I am aware of the case that my hon. Friend raises because he has written to me and his local chief crown prosecutor about it. He raises the issue of whether the CPS should object to bail. He also raises the issue of "Crimewatch", which can be used to find people who have skipped bail. On the issue of the CPS and the police working closely together on tracing people and bringing them back to court after they have skipped bail, that is important through the whole process, including during trials and advice on cases generally. My hon. Friend raises a tragic case and I understand that the police do not yet know where the defendant is. I hope that they find him, and when they do, he will be brought before the court to face the charges.

William Cash: Can the Solicitor-General shed light on the mystery of why, since 1997, the number bailed by the Crown court has fallen by 11 per cent., but the percentage failing to appear has increased by 3 per cent.? Why is that happening? In relation to the question of objecting to bail, does she have any remedies, because the situation appears to be getting exponentially more serious?

Harriet Harman: The CPS always thinks carefully, according to its code for prosecutors, about whether it should object to bail when a request is made. The hon. Gentleman knows that the CPS does not know why more of those granted bail are skipping bail, but that will inform its view of how often it is right to object to bail. The general pattern of more people skipping bail will make the CPS look harder at whether it should object to the granting of bail. I will consider the figures and see whether I can shed more light on the mystery that he raises.

Previous Convictions (Disclosure)

Neil Turner: What assessment she has made of the impact on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service of implementing the proposal of the Auld report that the previous convictions of defendants be disclosed at trial.

Harriet Harman: In his review of the criminal courts, Lord Justice Auld recommended that consideration be given to the Law Commission proposal on evidence of bad character as part of a review of the law of evidence more generally. The CPS is consulting its prosecutors about the implications of different approaches to admitting evidence of previous convictions.

Neil Turner: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Anything that allows the CPS to make more prosecutions must be welcomed, but if convictions are made known to the court prior to witnesses giving evidence, might that make them less liable to come forward? Is that a possible drawback of any change to the system?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The provision to the jury of evidence of previous misconduct—previous convictions—is an issue not only in relation to the defendant but in relation to defence witnesses. Should the jury know about their previous convictions? All those issues are within the scope of the Law Commission's report and recommendations, and all have been looked at by the Auld report, consultation on which will finish at the end of January. There has also been regional consultation, in which evidence has been discussed.
	The Government will consider all the information coming from the wide-ranging consultation and we will publish a White Paper. One of the things contained within that will be the way in which we deal with the issue so that we have simpler, clearer and more predictable rules of evidence in relation to previous convictions, which command public confidence.

Simon Hughes: Does the Solicitor-General have figures for the trials that already have disclosure of previous convictions and for trials in which the defendant's previous convictions have not been disclosed under the present rules? I ask because the right hon. and learned Lady will be aware that there is great concern about any significant change in the proposition that somebody should be tried without knowledge of their previous convictions, because if these are brought in, we hugely increase the chance of a conviction, whether the person is guilty or not.

Harriet Harman: The Law Commission's proposals—which are still out for consultation—would mean that some previous convictions that are currently admissible would no longer be allowed, and that others that are currently not admissible would be allowed. The situation will change. The Attorney-General and I have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider the issue in great detail because the CPS is in court, dealing with issues of evidence. Obviously the CPS and the Government want the system to be fair, clear and understandable; that is also in the public interest. We can all agree that that is not the situation at the moment, but the rights of defendants and the question of bringing offenders to justice must both be considered under the new system.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Office of Communications Bill [Lords].
	Motion to approve a money resolution on the Home Energy Conservation Bill.
	Tuesday 15 January—Remaining stages of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill.
	Wednesday 16 January—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. Until Seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "State of the Railways" followed by a debate entitled "The Crisis in the Care System". Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
	Thursday 17 January—A debate on Bristol Royal infirmary on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 18 January—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 21 January—Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Tuesday 22 January—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 23 January—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 24 January—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
	Friday 25 January—Private Members' Bills.
	I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on Thursday 17 January will now be a debate on victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.
	I should also like to inform the House that, on Wednesday 16 January 2002, there will a debate on the sixth environmental action programme in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
	Following are the documents:
	
		Reports Session 1999–2000
		
			 Report No: Title HC No. Publication Date Govt Reply 
			 38 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme in England 36224 November 2000 Cm 5021 
			 39 HM Customs and Excise: Revenue from Gambling Duties 4238 November 2000 Cm 5021  
			 40 National Savings: Public-Private Partnership with Siemens Business Services 56615 November 2000 Cm 5021  
			 41 The Gaming Board: Better Regulation 61116 November 2000 Cm 5021 
			 42 The Management and Control of Hospital Acquired Infection in Acute NHS Trusts in England 30623 November 2000 Cm 5021 
			 43 Hip Replacements: Getting it Right First Time 51313 December 2000 Cm 5071 
			 44 Ministry of Defence: Accepting Equipment Off-Contract and into Service 31930 November 2000 Cm 5078 
			 45 Ministry of Defence: Acceptance of the Chinook Mk 2 Helicopter 97530 November 2000 Cm 5078 
			 46 Ministry of Defence: Kosovo—The Financial Management of Military Operations 58221 December 2000 Cm 5071 
			 47 The National Health Service Executive—Valedictory Hearing: Sir Alan Langlands 62419 December 2000 Cm 5071 
		
	
	
		Reports Session 2000–01
		
			 Report No: Title HC No. Publication Date Govt Reply 
			 1 Inpatient Administration, Bed Management and Patient Discharge in NHS Acute Hospitals 13525 January 2001 Cm 5127 
			 2 Public Trust Office: Unclaimed Balances Held in Funds in Court and the Office's 1998–99 Accounts 14231 January 2001 Cm 5127 
			 3 Emergency Aid: The Kosovo Crisis 14314 January 2001 Cm 5127 
			 4 Grants made by the National Lottery Charities Board 16816 February 2001 Cm 5127 
			 5 The Draft Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations 2001 24318 February 2001 Cm 5127 
			 6 Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government 2602 March 2001 Cm 5201 
			 7 Excess Votes 1999–2000: Class X, Votes 2 and 3 2849 March 2001 N/A 
			 8 Maintaining the Royal Palaces 7714 March 2001 Cm 5201 
			 9 Managing Finances in English Further Education Colleges 28321 March 2001 Cm 5201 
			 10 Parole 34929 March 2001 Cm 5201 
			 11 The Housing Corporation: Overseeing Focus Housing Association 3652 May 2001 Cm 5261  
			 12 English Heritage: Access to Properties 2653 May 2001 Cm 5201 
			 13 The Refinancing of Fazakerley PFI Prison Contract 3725 July 2001 Cm 5261 
			 14 Ministry of Defence: Managing Reductions in the Number of Vacant Family Quarters 3915 July 2001 Cm 5261 
			 15 Strategic Rail Authority: Action to Improve Passenger Rail Services 39218 July 2001 Cm 5261 
			 16 The National Blood Service 20711 July 2001 Cm 5261 
		
	
	[Wednesday 16 January 2002:
	European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union Document: 5771/01, Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-xi (2000-01); HC 152-i and HC 152-ii (2001-02).]

Eric Forth: In thanking the Leader, may I take this opportunity, if it is not too late, to wish him a happy new year?
	May we have an urgent statement on a very serious allegation that has been raised today—what I would have to call the "cash for no question" issue? It would appear—I can scarcely believe this—that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) had a question down to the Prime Minister, but that the powers-that-be in the Government persuaded him to withdraw his question—which was going to be about the inadequacy of funding for a hospital in his constituency—with the promise of £200,000 additional funding for the hospital.
	We are used to allegations about cash for questions, but the amount seems excessive, and to be an example of regrettable parliamentary inflation. Apparently, the going rate for the withdrawal by a Government Back Bencher of a question—presumably to avoid embarrassment to the Prime Minister—is £200,000. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that an urgent statement on this serious matter will be made—if not today, then tomorrow—because we need to get to the bottom of it and to be assured that the allegation is untrue. If it is true, we need to be told how the tactic can be justified.
	I hope that the Leader of the House will also make provision for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House and explain his response to the unusually truthful statements from the Minister for Europe. Today's press report that Minister as saying:
	"We have the worst railways in Europe.
	We started transport investment far too late . . . We should have been more radical earlier."
	I quote from The Sun, which the House knows has a direct line to No. 10, so we can rely on what it says. It states:
	"Last night, a Government source"—
	and we all know who that is—
	"said: 'Peter Hain has finally coughed to what we have known for some time.
	The transport system has been going to pot since the day Labour won power.
	John Prescott, who told us for years what he would do to put it right, messed it up once he got the chance.'"
	These are serious matters, because not only is a Minister of State admitting finally that the railways have been put into a disgraceful condition by the Government—which we have known for some time—but a Government source is seeking to undermine the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask, therefore, for a statement, either from the Deputy Prime Minister or from the Minister for Europe. Otherwise, I hope that the Leader of the House will arrange for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister, as it is obviously his man who has given this information to The Sun.

Robin Cook: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for the new year. I am very happy to accept them, however late they may come in the course of the parliamentary Session. I shall observe only that it is plain that the Christmas and new year recess has in no way softened his approach to these exchanges, but I would have been surprised and disappointed if it had.
	I have no insight into why my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) may not have asked his question. That is entirely a matter for him to decide. However, I am taken aback that the right hon. Gentleman should complain about a case in which an hon. Member, finding that an issue that he has raised has been satisfactorily resolved, decides not to continue to press that issue in the House. I should have thought that resolving the problems of our constituents was what Parliament was for. If this constituency matter has been resolved, I can only commend the speed with which that has been achieved.
	I turn now to the railways. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present in the House when we debated transport matters in the 1970s and 1980s. Had he been present, he would have heard a number of speeches—by me, and by the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill)—making the point that investment in Britain's railways was among the lowest in Europe, and that that had caused a relative decline in the quality of our railways. That is why this Government have set about increasing investment in the railways.
	I remind hon. Members of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. He told the House that, in the previous Parliament, this Government increased by half as much again the annual investment in the railways inherited from the previous Conservative Government. In this Parliament, we shall double that amount. Every year of this Parliament, this Government will be investing three times as much as the average for the last years in office of the previous Conservative Government.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe drew attention to what has been a matter for discussion in the Labour party and in the press—that, for the first two years of this Labour Government, we followed the investment and spending plans inherited from our Conservative predecessors. I am perfectly willing to listen to my colleagues and friends in Government ask whether, in retrospect, we should necessarily have shown such patience. I am not willing to listen to lectures from the Conservative party, which left us those spending plans and an inheritance for the railway industry that will take a decade to put right.

Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the coal industry that will be wide ranging enough to deal with the problem of equal pay for the female cleaners and catering staff who have missed out on equal pay provisions? It should be broad enough to deal with the continuing compensation problems that exist for those with vibration white finger, bronchitis and emphysema and to take into account the miners' pension fund. The 50:50 arrangement on surpluses is in an unfortunate position and needs renegotiating so that those pension rights can be extended and developed.

Robin Cook: I am well aware of both the points that my hon. Friend raises; the deep personal concern of the individuals involved has been articulated in the House on a number of occasions.
	I remind my hon. Friend that the Government were anxious to find a solution to the problem of the cleaners and other domestic staff who were caught in the position to which he refers. Indeed, we settled with all those who were nominated by the union. We very much regret that it appears that people were not included in that initial nomination, but there comes a point at which we have to draw a line under the settlement. Although I understand why the individuals concerned may feel aggrieved, we took a step that no previous Government had taken to try to resolve the issue, and we did resolve it with all those known to us at the time.

Paul Tyler: When can we expect the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the Dispatch Box and give us a full explanation of what is going on in the rail industry? The crisis is reaching desperate proportions but we have had no full statement from the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House really believe it to be desirable or satisfactory for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, in the columns of The Spectator, to produce the first analysis of the chaos that the Government have added to by failing to undo the disasters of rail privatisation in their first four years? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it satisfactory that the Liberal Democrats have to provide the Secretary of State with an opportunity to explain to the House the chaos that has been caused in the rail industry and the confusion that is increasing every day, to the disadvantage of rail passengers?
	In the light of what will obviously happen as a result of the Lord Chancellor's duffing up at yesterday's meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is true that Labour Members are being invited, by questionnaire, to tell the Government what proportion of elected Members of the second Chamber they are prepared to accept? Why, as Leader of the whole House, is the right hon. Gentleman not inviting all members of all parties to tell him how the Government have got it wrong?

Robin Cook: On the last matter, I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. No questionnaire from the Government Whips is going round the PLP.

Eric Forth: Why not?

Robin Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to send a questionnaire to all Labour Members, I can predict some of the answers that he will get. However, he is welcome to do so.
	We are about to have a debate on the House of Lords in which I will address the matter at greater length—indeed, perhaps at great length. I hope that the process of the debate will help take us forward to find a point of consensus on the plans for reform of the House of Lords.
	On the rail industry, a speech will be made by the Minister with responsibility for the railways in the debate next week. In addition, Monday sees the publication of the new four-year plan from the Strategic Rail Authority under its new direction. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will have things to say on that occasion.

David Wright: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a review of English Partnerships' activity is under way. English Partnerships is a major landholder in Telford and is key to the regeneration of the town. When will there be a statement to the House on the progress of the review?

Robin Cook: I am advised that the review is already under way. It was announced in October 2000, and there will shortly be an announcement on its progress.

Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House said that he was not prepared to listen to Conservative Members. I remind him that most of the signatories to early-day motion 513 on the parliamentary commissioner are Labour Members:
	[That this House has confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and invites Elizabeth Filkin to accept reappointment on the terms of the initial contract working four days a week.]
	Is the announcement that Mr. John Stonborough has been appointed as the crisis manager for the House of Commons Commission a sign that we are likely to have that debate? What progress is being made in making a nomination to the House? Is it open to the House to say that the present commissioner should be invited to carry on with her work on her present terms?

Robin Cook: The last sentence is a statement of the facts at the present time. The commissioner remains in post and must continue with her job; indeed, we would be distressed if she did not do so. The offer remains open to her to include herself on the shortlist, on which we guaranteed her a place. I have repeatedly urged her to accept that invitation. We want to ensure that we get the best possible candidate for the House to occupy the role of parliamentary commissioner. That is why we have tested the market. I am pleased to say that we have received a number of excellent applications, on which we will reach a judgment in the next month or two.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend secure a statement on Iran's refusal to accept the Government's choice of ambassador to Iran, Mr. David Reddaway, on the grounds that he is Jewish, or that they believe him to be so? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is plain anti-semitism, that it should not be accepted and that Iran should not be in a position to dictate to the Government who should be our rightful ambassador?

Robin Cook: As I understand the situation, the friction to which my hon. Friend refers does not exist. Mr. Reddaway is an excellent diplomat. I knew and worked with him when I was at the Foreign Office and have full confidence in him. It is not unusual for there to be a short delay between one ambassador leaving and another arriving. There is no friction of the sort to which she refers.

Peter Viggers: Will the Leader of the House find time soon to debate an issue that I first raised on 5 November—namely, European Union regulations on the disposal of refrigerators? Are the Government aware that this is entirely a matter of their creation, because they failed to seek a derogation from those regulations, thus making it impossible for refrigerators to be disposed of, which is leading to fly tipping and all sorts of problems? Does he recognise that it is a problem that must be rectified, and soon?

Robin Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his view that that is a serious and pressing problem. It is having a serious impact in a number of areas. The Government are fully seized of the issue and are looking for a way to deal with it as quickly as possible.

Tony McWalter: Following the question about English Partnerships, which often used to get rid of land in new towns without consulting the local community, is my right hon. Friend aware that Defence Estates is also engaging in that practice? For instance, it has given the local Royal Air Force benevolent club in my constituency notice to quit. I hope that he will urge Defence Ministers to explain to the House that Defence Estates will act in the interests of communities, not against them, when they take such decisions.

Robin Cook: I cannot say that I am familiar with the case that my hon. Friend draws to the House's attention, but I am glad that he has been given the opportunity to ventilate what is obviously a serious issue for his constituency. I will happily draw his comments to the attention of the Ministry of Defence.

Andrew Mitchell: As the Government grapple extraordinarily ineffectively with the winter of discontent that has descended on public services in many parts of the country, is the right hon. Gentleman, who was on the Government Benches in 1978, suffering from a sense of deja vu? Will he reconsider the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I made, which is that we should have regular debates—say, every month—that are attended by the Prime Minister so that we can monitor on behalf of our constituents how he is getting on with his solemn pledge to the British people at the general election that he would deliver world-class public health services?

Robin Cook: I am refreshed to see that Conservative rhetoric has not changed in 30 years. It is helpful in this world of change to have such a reassuring statement of stasis and paralysis. Of course, there will be plenty of opportunities for the House to debate the state of the public services during this Parliament. Indeed, the Prime Minister has shown a refreshing and welcome interest in those matters. In December, he took part in discussions on health policy, and he will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman should not run down the improvement that has been secured through the increase in the number of doctors and nurses in the health service and the first increase for more than a generation in the number of beds in our hospitals. That is why this winter has passed so far without the sort of crisis that we saw in the closing years of the Conservative Government. They did not increase the number of beds in our hospitals; they dramatically cut the number.

Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House take soundings throughout the House to establish the views of Members on two points: first, whether there is now a consensus, as I suspect, in favour of a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber, on the principle that, in a democracy, the people should decide who sits in our Parliament; and, secondly, whether now is the time for the responsibility for policy on the subject to be located in this House—the House of the Executive—and specifically in the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

Robin Cook: I think that I would be very unwise to respond to the last part of my hon. Friend's question. On the other matter, I invite him to listen attentively to the half hour that I am about to embark upon.

Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware of the concern in the House about the relationship between India and Pakistan. The Prime Minister recently visited those countries, yet we have not had a statement on what happened. Specifically, is it possible to have a statement on whether he made any representation to the President of Pakistan about the person in Pakistan who is agitating for attacks on this country, and whether there is any chance of extradition to enable that person to be brought here to be tried for such activities? Concerns were expressed about London being a centre of international terrorism; now it seems that we can be attacked from abroad, by encouragement. Is it possible that there might be that ambiguity in the Government's viewpoint between home-bred terrorists and international terrorism?

Robin Cook: I see no such ambiguity in that case. I believe that the hon. Gentleman refers to Mr. Butt, whose inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric we would all deplore. It must be borne in mind that on several occasions in the past he has made wild statements that have turned out to have no substantial basis in fact.
	Without referring specifically to the case of Mr. Butt, our security and law enforcement services monitor the situation very carefully and look very hard to see whether there is any evidence of a threat to this country from within or without it. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, those authorities now have more means with which to conduct that search for any threat to the country and hold to account those who are a threat to this country.

Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that should a full-scale war break out in Kashmir, it would have a disastrous effect on community relations in many towns and cities in Britain that have a substantial number of citizens of Indian and Pakistani origin? It has been said that the conflict could produce civil unrest on Britain's streets that would make the current disturbances in north Belfast seem like a teddy bears' picnic. Will he find time for the House to be regularly updated on the worrying events in Kashmir, and will he ask our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to encourage peaceful dialogue in the region?

Robin Cook: I would not wish to be alarmist about the consequences of conflict in the sub-continent. We have witnessed such conflict in the past without any sensational developments on our own streets, although we must be careful about the rhetoric that we use. However, having expressed that reservation, I would have no dissent with my hon. Friend's concern about the consequences for the region and the world of any conflict. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put so much effort into speaking to the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan and urging them to return to dialogue. I find it very hard to understand why some have criticised him for going to that very substantial area of partnership for Britain, of community ties with the British people, and of concern about tension for world peace. I believe that he was absolutely right to go and absolutely right to try to ensure that peace continues.

George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House take an urgent look at the format of Transport questions, as under the present arrangements we can question only the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions and his junior Ministers, none of whom runs the Government's transport policy? Will he find an early parliamentary opportunity for us to question the Government Deputy Chief Whip, who is responsible for negotiating with the striking unions, Lord Birt, who is in charge of long-term Government thinking on transport policy, and the Minister for Europe, who seems to be in charge of telling the truth on transport policy?

Robin Cook: I have to tell the House that I know of no ministerial team from any Department that has appeared more often in the Chamber or any Cabinet colleague who has come more often to the Dispatch Box since the general election than the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and his team. It was entirely wrong for some in the press to criticise him for taking a holiday over the new year, for heaven's sake, and I should like to know whether those in the press who made that criticism have taken fewer holidays than him during the past 12 months.

David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend make a clear commitment to the Government's commitment to mutual and co-operative organisations? Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Government—principally, those at the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry—to ensure that they carefully consider the two Bills that will be debated on 18 and 25 January? Those Bills would make a significant difference to mutual organisations, so anything that could be done would be of major importance all round.

Robin Cook: The Government are highly supportive of the development of co-operative forms of ownership and partnership in industry and business, and we shall continue that record of support and ensure that there are no legal barriers in the way of such of organisations flourishing and competing successfully. I will pass on to the relevant Department my hon. Friend's comments on the forthcoming private Members' Bills.

Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House will know that the Government have recently published proposals—albeit, in consultative documents—seeking to make radical changes to our town and country planning system, including dealing with planning applications of national significance. As those issues are vital to all our constituents, does he agree that a debate on that matter would be very helpful to the Government and, indeed, the House at this time?

Robin Cook: I am always open to suggestions for debates that would be helpful to the Government and will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. He raises a very serious and strategic issue, and he is right to say that we are consulting on it. It is important that that consultation process should enable all those in the country to express their views. I understand that the proposals cannot proceed without legislation, so they are bound to be debated in the House at some stage.

David Chaytor: May I tell my right hon. Friend how fearful many families in my constituency with friends and relatives in Kashmir are about the growing tension between India and Pakistan? I endorse the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) to hold a debate on this subject in the near future. May I tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents appreciate the Foreign Secretary's efforts in seeking to mediate between India and Pakistan? Does he agree that this is perhaps now the time for the United Kingdom to play a more proactive role as a mediator in the conflict between those two nations?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is correct. Some 3 million people in Britain have community and family ties with the sub-continent, all of whom will watch, with close interest and apprehension, what may happen to their relatives and back any effort to try to preserve peace. Those efforts are strenuously pursued in the Foreign Office and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I appreciate my hon. Friend's call for more discussion of this issue in the Chamber, and I will retain a watching brief on it and consider what he says.
	In the meantime, I should mention that I suggested in my modernisation proposals that we should reduce the period of notice for oral questions to increase topicality. Tuesday's Question Time was a good example of the need to do that, as the Order Paper contained not a single question to the Foreign Secretary on India and Pakistan. That would not have happened if we had a realistic period of notice.

Andrew MacKay: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has singularly failed to explain why the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has not voluntarily come to the Chamber since the House returned on Tuesday, when my constituents and others are suffering from neanderthal industrial action on the railways at the hands of the RMT? Is the real answer that too many Labour Members, starting with the Deputy Prime Minister, are far too close to the RMT?

Robin Cook: I indignantly deny that suggestion. For the record and in case anyone subsequently complains, I explain that I have had a long relationship with the RMT, which has been regularly and annually declared. I am happy to make that clear.
	The position that the Government have taken on the current dispute has been to invite both sides to go forward to arbitration. There is provision for arbitration in their agreement, and we hope that both sides will agree to arbitration.
	Over decades, the House has discussed the Government's role in disputes and, by and large, the consensus has emerged—a consensus that was certainly followed by the previous Conservative Government—that industrial disputes are a matter for the business concerned. They are not for politicians to resolve on a political basis.

Clive Efford: May I ask for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to make a statement on the performance of the train operating companies? Too much of the debate about the railways has focused on individuals rather than on what people in the street want done to improve the railways. My constituents suffer the daily misery of travelling to central London on Connex South Eastern, which is almost certainly the worst-performing train operating company on the rail network. We need a proper debate—not one that is petty and backbiting about who is or is not running the railways—that will bring about the improvements that we need. The performance of the train operating companies and the persistent poor performance of the management of those companies is worthy of debate in the House.

Robin Cook: I echo the central thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. This issue is not a matter of personalities and it should not be personalised. Fundamental strategic issues are involved and those who use the railways are aware of some of them. They would like those issues, and not personalities, to be at the centre of the debate.
	I invite my hon. Friend to look forward to the announcement on Monday of the Strategic Rail Authority's four-year plan. I hope that it will provide a way in which we can create a consistent theme to take forward the future of the railways and to address some of the problems that they face.

David Heath: Can the Leader of the House find time for a brief debate on the helicopter industry? He may be aware that just one hour ago Westland helicopters, which is now part of AgustaWestland, announced 600 job losses at its base in Yeovil. That will have a serious effect on my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). Is it not time that we had an opportunity to hear from Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about the strategic importance to both military and civil avionics of our helicopter industry, and from Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions about the help that they can afford my constituents at this very difficult time?

Robin Cook: I fully sympathise with the position of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I was notified of the recent announcement of the redundancies in Yeovil and elsewhere in the south-west. The Government will obviously examine any way in which, through the Department of Trade and Industry and the Employment Service, we can assist communities to cope with the impact of the redundancies. However, at the end of the day, the decision is one for the company. It was not taken by the Government, and although we of course bear in mind the strategic importance of preserving our own weapons and armaments industries, those industries must ultimately decide what is required of their work force and the size of the work force they need.

Paul Flynn: When can we debate the adverse effects of prescribed drugs? It has been reported that the young pilot who crashed into the skyscraper in Miami was being prescribed Roaccutane, which is notorious for producing side effects including depressive illnesses and suicidal tendencies. A few years ago, a young constituent of mine died after being prescribed this drug and his parents have been campaigning ever since for clearer labelling of the drug and for warnings that it had such awful side effects. I have seen no improvements since then on the warnings about Roaccutane. When can we debate the issue?

Robin Cook: I have to confess that I am not technically qualified to enter into a discussion on the particular drug to which my hon. Friend refers. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Department of Health. There are requirements on the information about and on the labelling of all drugs and they usually draw attention to the kind of side effects that he has mentioned. However, if there is a problem, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will wish to address it.

Gary Streeter: Given that in two weeks' time South Hams district council will produce a local plan that almost certainly will provide, thanks to Government pressure, for a new town in the middle of my constituency for up to 4,500 houses that no one locally wants, may I add my weight to a call for a debate in Government time on town and country planning? Two points need to be made. First, while the Government consult on new rules, district councils up and down the country are producing local plans on the basis of existing rules and are confused whether the new rules will apply to that process. Secondly, we need to be able to argue the case for existing national housebuilding targets to be scrapped so that decisions on the number of houses to be built locally can be taken by local people.

Robin Cook: I would not advise the hon. Gentleman's council or any other to put decisions on hold pending a change in legislation. As Leader of the House I can say that there is no guarantee when legislation will be completed and come into force. It is important that decisions are not left in suspense until then. I understand the controversy that such a proposal must cause in any constituency, but there are many ways for the hon. Gentleman to ventilate his concerns, and I would encourage him to do so.

John Cryer: Is there time for a debate on the energy industry? We need that debate for two reasons. First, Ofgem, the energy watchdog, plans to complete the deregulation of energy pricing, which has implications for rising energy prices for low-income families. Secondly, confidence tricksters are going around switching energy supplies to various homes without the permission of the people who live in them. Clearly that is to a large extent a result of deregulation and we need to crack down on those cowboys. Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, on those problems in the energy industry?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes his concerns most forcefully and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister. I understand that the Office for Gas and Electricity Marketing is consulting on some of those matters and he may wish to express his concerns directly to it.

Michael Jack: In 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	"I will have failed in five years' time if there are not fewer journeys by car."
	He went on to say:
	"It is a tall order—but I want you to hold me to it."
	I mention in the light of today's report that since 1997 there are 3 million more cars on the roads of the United Kingdom. May I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on transport so that we might first explore the total failure of the Government to move people from cars on to public transport and secondly consider the roads policy? It seems to me that most of those 3 million cars are parked permanently on the M6, unable to move because of the Government's failure to reach conclusions on the development of those vital routeways.

Robin Cook: There have been more debates on transport than any other issue in this Parliament and I am sure that it will continue to be a priority. However, the right hon. Gentleman might, for completeness, have shared with the House the fact that more people are travelling by bus than before and more people are travelling by train than ever before. I would have thought that the Conservative party would welcome the new subsidies that we introduced to ensure that there are more rural buses.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that quite a few of us on the Opposition Benches think that, all things considered, he was a capable and able Foreign Secretary, and in particular that his ethical foreign policy would have had more impact on Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the Government's policy on Zimbabwe is not delivering? It is about as much use as an ashtray on a motor cycle, and that country is facing its gravest crisis since independence. Is it not time that we had a full-day's debate on the crisis in Zimbabwe?

Robin Cook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening comment, but it would have been nice if it had been made when I was Foreign Secretary, rather than afterwards.
	Zimbabwe is in a grave crisis. Indeed, no one in the Government has sought to diminish that in any way. I read the comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Question Time on Tuesday. He clearly laid the degree of persistent serious violation of human rights in Zimbabwe on the line and made a new commitment that if the situation does not improve the Government will speak up for the expulsion of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.
	We have gone through the gamut of measures available to us as sanctions. We have reduced aid and targeted it only for humanitarian purposes. We have used the political measures available to us. We have withdrawn the British military advisory and training team from Zimbabwe. We are working with both the Commonwealth and the European Union, with some success, to increase that pressure and we will continue to do everything that we can.

Andrew Robathan: Can the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a Government statement on the ombudsman's report, published at the end of last year, on access to official information? The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the ombudsman found that this was the only occasion when a Government had failed properly to respond to a report of his on access to information. As a result, he laid it in the Library of the House, but there is still no Government response. Can the right hon. Gentleman ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for relations with the ombudsman, to come to the House and make a response so that we can question him about what the Government are trying to hide?

Robin Cook: The Government are not trying to hide anything; indeed, as the ombudsman's report accepts, the Government were acting entirely within the principles of the code and the decision concerned was not wrong, even though he himself may have chosen to disagree with it. The hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to pursue the matter, and I am sure that he will do so.

Bob Spink: I became aware yesterday of some of the issues surrounding the withdrawal of a question to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). We heard more about that today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The matter raises serious issues about Back Benchers' ability to hold the Government to account, Government control freakery, which is becoming all too apparent, and the status of Parliament itself. We ought to have a debate so that we can investigate all those issues.

Robin Cook: Whatever can be said about the matter concerned, I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that it hardly seems to be an example of Parliament failing to hold Ministers to account; on the contrary, it demonstrates the Government responding quickly, expeditiously and appropriately to a Member's concern.

International Assistance Force (Kabul)

Geoff Hoon: In my most recent statement about Afghanistan, on 19 December, I set out the encouraging progress that had been made towards the deployment of an international security assistance force to Kabul and its surrounding areas. I am grateful for this early opportunity to bring the House up to date with the considerable progress that we have made since then.
	First, however, it is important to repeat why the United Kingdom is participating in and, indeed, leading the international security assistance force. That is entirely consistent with the objectives for the campaign against international terrorism that we set out last October. Those objectives have not changed. They are being achieved, and coalition military operations will continue until they have been achieved in full. The United Kingdom continues to support the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.
	We have always made it clear, however, that our commitment to Afghanistan was not simply for the short term. One of the longer-term campaign aims that we set out in October was to secure the reintegration of Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community and an end to its self-imposed isolation. That is vital if we are to ensure that the link between Afghanistan and international terrorism is broken.
	An essential part of achieving that longer term aim is supporting the establishment of a new representative Government in Afghanistan—a process that was agreed at Bonn on 5 December. That means providing support to the Afghan Interim Administration. That support was clearly demonstrated by the Prime Minister's visit to Bagram on Monday.
	The Bonn agreement called for the deployment of an international security assistance force to Kabul. One month on, troops are already on patrol in the streets of the Afghan capital. As the lead nation for the security force for the first three months, the United Kingdom has been responsible for putting the ISAF together. To have put together a major international force and agreed the terms of its deployment with an Interim Administration who have only just taken office—all in less than a month—is a remarkable achievement. I pay tribute to all the other nations who have offered troops—both those who will be contributing from the outset and those who will not—and to the Afghan Administration and to the United States. Without their help, we would never have achieved that in such a short time.
	The way forward for the deployment of the force was cleared by the signing of the military technical agreement on 4 January by the commander of the ISAF, Major- General McColl, and the Afghan Interim Administration. That agreement, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House, sets out the relationship between the ISAF and the Interim Administration. It defines the status of the security force and gives it the powers that it requires to operate freely and without hindrance. It covers the legal status of the ISAF, its deployment and authority, and the support that the Interim Administration will provide. It specifies the location of the barracks in Kabul to which Afghan forces will be confined. Most important, it makes clear what the ISAF will do and where it will operate.
	The ISAF is there to assist the Afghan Interim Administration, and the military technical agreement sets out what that might mean in practice. In addition to taking part in joint patrols with the Afghan police, the ISAF may assist the Interim Administration in developing future security structures; assist the Interim Administration in reconstruction; and identify and arrange training and assistance tasks for future Afghan security forces. The ISAF will operate in Kabul, and Kabul alone. The military technical agreement includes a map that clearly delimits the security force's area of responsibility.
	In putting the security force together, we have made a careful assessment of the military capabilities that are needed to complete these tasks. Major General McColl and representatives from other troop-contributing nations have already carried out essential reconnaissance to that end. The ISAF headquarters is now operational and the first elements of the ISAF main body have already deployed. British forces have been on patrol in Kabul for nearly two weeks now. French troops began to patrol yesterday and those patrols have been extremely well received by the people of Kabul.
	In total, the security force will be about 5,000 strong. Putting it together has not been easy, but not because we lacked offers of help. The international community responded swiftly and generously to our request for troops and at the planning conference on 19 December, 21 countries offered forces. Many nations offered infantry, but we had to construct a balanced and capable force able to get to Afghanistan quickly, support itself and do its job. The ISAF needs logistics support, explosive ordnance disposal troops, signallers, engineers, medical units, helicopters and, given that it will deploy and be supplied by air, it needs air transport.
	As is always the case when putting a force together, we had to negotiate with the countries offering troops. Some were able to adjust their offers in the light of what we needed; others were not. For various reasons, some countries, such as Argentina, Jordan and Malaysia, have had to withdraw their offers to participate. There may, of course, be an opportunity for them to contribute troops at a later stage. There has been some comment about Canada's generous offer of an infantry battlegroup. It was not rejected; we were simply unable to accept it in its entirety from the outset. We had hoped to use its engineers right from the beginning, then replace our own infantry battlegroup with the Canadian battlegroup after several weeks. In the end, the Canadians decided to deploy their troops elsewhere—to Kandahar—to support continuing offensive operations in that region. While we would have welcomed them as part of the security force, we welcome their deployment to Kandahar where they will play an important role in the fight against international terrorism.
	In total, we expect 17 countries to deploy troops alongside United Kingdom forces as part of the ISAF—Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. The participation of those nations will be formalised this afternoon with the signing here in London of memorandums of understanding. That represents the final step in agreeing the structure of the ISAF for its period under our leadership.
	The nature of the forces provided by those nations varies considerably in size and type. The Austrians, Danes and Dutch are deploying forces as part of a German-led multinational infantry battlegroup; others are providing vital specialist troops. New Zealand, for example, is to provide headquarters staff and support troops; Norway has promised explosive ordnance disposal troops and other support troops; Romania has offered military police and air transport assets; and Turkey will help staff the headquarters and will deploy other troops as well.
	The security force is authorised by a United Nations Security Council resolution and will be led by the United Kingdom. The United States central command has authority over the ISAF to ensure that there is no risk of its activities interfering with the successful completion of Operation Enduring Freedom. The membership of the security force will probably change over the next six months. The ISAF is a coalition of the willing, drawn from forces that are needed, available and deployable in the time required.
	The United Kingdom has agreed to lead the ISAF for its first three months. We took that on because our armed forces have the right capabilities; we have experience in expeditionary operations and rapid deployments; and we can provide effective command structures and enablers to get a force in and up and running in the time scale required. Being the lead nation means that we must inevitably provide the core of the security force, which is vividly demonstrated by the breadth of the forces that we have assigned to it. The force headquarters is drawn from the headquarters of 3(UK) Division. The headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade will exercise tactical command. Our infantry battle group is centred around the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, and includes a company of Gurkhas. Elements of 33 and 36 Regiments, Royal Engineers, will deploy—so will 30 Signal Regiment, which will provide strategic communications. Support troops will be drawn from a number of units, including 13 Air Assault Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps, and 16 Medical Regiment of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The Royal Air Force is deploying a range of airfield enablers from stations across the country. Those are simply the major force elements; we will also deploy many other smaller support units. We are now withdrawing the elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines who have helped to secure Bagram airstrip.
	The United Kingdom's contribution to the ISAF will total up to 1,800 personnel. In addition and in the short term, we are deploying almost 300 Army and Royal Air Force personnel to help repair and operate Kabul international airport. That will help us in resupplying the ISAF and will be of lasting benefit to the Afghan people. We are able to make this contribution without any impact on our other operational commitments. Our commitment as lead nation is limited in duration. The ISAF mandate is for six months; we shall hand over our lead nation status to one of our partners after three months. I am delighted that Turkey has already expressed an interest in the responsibility. That does not mean that our commitment to participating in the security force will end completely at the three-month point. Certainly, we would expect to see a significant reduction in the number of British troops deployed, but we will not ignore the need to give continuing support to whoever takes over as lead nation.
	We and our partners have already begun to deploy the forces assigned to the ISAF. Others will follow over the next few weeks. The security force should reach its full strength by mid-February. This deployment is not easy: it can only be done by air; airport facilities in Afghanistan are limited and very basic; and weather conditions can be treacherous. Supplying the security force—also by air—will be difficult. So far, the deployment has gone well, thanks to the thorough preparatory work we have been doing over the past few weeks.
	We have put together and begun deploying the international security assistance force while continuing our contribution to the coalition military operations elsewhere in Afghanistan. As I have indicated, the United Kingdom is continuing to support the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. The Royal Air Force is still flying reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling sorties. The Royal Navy is now playing an important role in the coalition maritime force in the region and is patrolling in the Arabian sea to prevent those with links to al-Qaeda from escaping from the region. I pay tribute to the work that it is doing.
	Neither we nor the wider international community have neglected the provision of humanitarian aid. The World Food Programme and other agencies have worked hard to ensure that relief supplies are in place for the winter months. The World Food Programme dispatched 116,000 metric tonnes of wheat in December, against a target of 100,000 tonnes. That is the highest monthly distribution into Afghanistan to date, reflecting the expansion in aid operations and improved access to most parts of the country.
	The United Kingdom's commitment to the Afghan people as they set about the enormous task of rebuilding their country remains as strong as our commitment to them in removing the Taliban from power. Our contribution to the ISAF is a clear demonstration of that commitment. Our contribution could not have been made without the skills and abilities of our armed forces. I am confident that they will carry out this new task, on which so much depends, to the high standards that we have come to expect.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, a copy of which I received in good time, for which I am grateful, and for his continued efforts to keep Parliament fully informed about developments in Afghanistan. May I reassure him and the House that, whatever reservations Opposition Members may express about the deployment of the ISAF, we share the hopes of the Government and the whole House that it will be successful? Moreover, the Government continue to enjoy the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for their backing of the United States in the war against terrorism and their commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan alongside the continuing humanitarian aid programme.
	I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would clarify four main issues. First, I understand that there has been an inevitable measure of uncertainty about the timing and mechanics of the deployment. Will he express his sympathy and understanding to the families of some elements of 2 Para that have been put on 48-hour standby and then stood down many times since 11 September and more than once over the Christmas period?
	Incidentally, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the welfare of our troops? What accommodation will United Kingdom soldiers have in Afghanistan? Will they have anything more than sleeping bags on concrete floors in derelict buildings for the coldest winter months? What access will they have to telephones and e-mails for contacting families back home?
	Secondly, uncertainty inevitably compounds the effects of overstretch. I note the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to deal with that point. However, does he recall that 2 Para was in Northern Ireland last Christmas and was sent to Macedonia at short notice during the school holidays in August? After this operation, it is due to serve in Northern Ireland again next Christmas. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman fully understands that such intensive disruption to family life is one of the factors that drives good soldiers to leave the British army. Can he set a date for the withdrawal of our main elements of the ISAF as well as for handing over responsibility to the follow-on force in three months?
	Thirdly, on overall command, is it true that the Government waited for the approval of all EU states, including non-NATO members, which are not involved in the ISAF or have only a token role, such as Austria, Finland and Sweden or no role, such as Ireland, as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on 14 December? Is it also true that our European partners objected to the principle of overall US command? Again, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on 16 December:
	"The British want the force to act under the auspices of US central command . . . Germany rejects this idea."
	Why have the Government acquiesced to the demand so that different UK forces in Afghanistan operate under split command in the same military theatre? Does that explain why the Foreign Secretary tabled proposals in writing on the matter in Washington that were rejected out of hand by the Americans and had to be substantially amended? What exactly is the agreement between the ISAF and US central command?
	Why has the Secretary of State allowed the shadow of the Euro army to cloud the Government's judgment? He has been determined to involve as many EU members as possible at the expense of NATO allies. That is not only my criticism; the Canadian Defence Minister can discern no other reason for the refusal of Canada's offer of help. On Monday he told a press conference in Ottawa:
	"This is a European Union kind of mission. I think quite clearly European politics became a part of the decision making process."
	Is the Secretary of State worried that he has created unnecessary friction with the United States and offended Canada, one of our most loyal and long-term NATO allies? As has been announced, the Canadian infantry is good enough for the Americans to deploy for war fighting around Kandahar.
	Fourthly, now that our troops are in Kabul, will the Secretary of State clarify any misunderstanding about the Bonn agreement? Annexe 1 clearly states that the Afghan Government must
	"withdraw all military units from Kabul and other urban centres or other areas in which the UN mandated force is deployed",
	yet Interior Minister Qanooni said that that will not happen.
	Does not the military technical agreement that was agreed last Friday permit the Kabul Government to maintain Northern Alliance forces in Kabul to be deployed when they wish? How will that affect the ability of ISAF forces to intervene in cases where lives are threatened? It is all very well saying that British forces are welcome in Kabul, although I am pleased by that news, but why was a patrol of Royal Marines able to do nothing but stand aside and watch a woman accused of adultery being stoned?
	We are told that ISAF patrols must defer to the Afghan police. How are they meant to distinguish between Afghan police and Northern Alliance troops, given that they are the same people? Why are we patrolling in "Kabul alone" to quote the Secretary of State, when the Bonn agreement clearly states:
	"This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas",
	so why Kabul alone?
	The Secretary of State must answer these questions about the political leadership of ISAF. As for the British armed forces, they are once again demonstrating their supreme professionalism, and we are confident that everyone, from the high command and General John McColl to the troops on the ground, is ready to meet any challenge that they are given. I assure them that we wish them every success.

Geoff Hoon: I welcome a number of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman, but he rather spoils the impact of his sensible questions by his continuing obsession with things European. He risks becoming a kind of Dr. Strangelove figure, unable to control his European obsessions, with his characteristic lack of understanding of the way in which these matters operate. Instead of concentrating on the matters at hand, about which he has some sensible questions to ask, he shows his obsession with Europe and European issues, which ruins what would otherwise be a perfectly sensible set of questions on behalf of the Opposition.
	I will deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in relation to the overall command of the force by referring to the statement that I have just made. Having given him the opportunity of reading it, I am surprised that he did not study the details of the command more carefully. This is a UN-mandated force, a coalition of the willing, that includes a significant number of countries—I read the list out fairly slowly for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. Countries such as Norway, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and New Zealand have not yet exhibited characteristics consistent with being members of the European Union. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's grasp of geography might be a little less than desirable. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front-Bench Members sitting there saying, "This is cheap". We read the shadow Defence Minister's observations on the front page of The Times the other day. We know what his obsession is; he has repeated it here today. If he wants his observations on defence matters to be treated sensibly, he really ought to make sensible ones. Frankly, talking about a European army is simply a characteristic of the obsession that the Conservative party and its Front-Bench spokesmen have, sadly, been gripped by.
	The force is a coalition of the willing. It works as a result of the 18 countries represented working together to provide the appropriate forces necessary to do this particular job. The hon. Gentleman asks why UK forces in Afghanistan will be under two different sets of command. The answer would be a statement of the obvious, if he had been following what has been happening there over recent months, British forces are engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom under the direct tactical command of the United States. There are now also forces involved in the security force engaged in helping to reconstruct Afghanistan. There is nothing remarkable about that, and nothing that is difficult to understand—except to someone who is determined not to understand it because he wants to make a cheap point about Europe and the way in which the forces are deployed.
	I set out our position clearly on the relationship with the United States Central Command—Centcom—in the statement. There is a clear relationship agreed between the United Kingdom and the United States to ensure deconfliction between the two forces. That is a matter that any sensible Ministry of Defence would resolve, and it has been resolved entirely satisfactorily between the United States, the United Kingdom and other contributors to the ISAF.
	I also set out the position in relation to Canada in the statement. Canada offered a complex battle group which, unfortunately, duplicated the kinds of forces that we had been offered by a number of other countries. In trying to provide a satisfactory solution for Canada, as well as for those other countries, we offered Canada the opportunity for its force to come in to replace a British battle group. This was a matter for Canada, and it judged that it was better for its force to become involved in the operations in southern Afghanistan. We entirely welcome that. The matter was agreed with Canada and it is not worth the comment that the hon. Gentleman chose to make about it.
	On the more sensible points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I share his concern about the impact on families, particularly over a holiday period, of the change in notice requirements and the difficulties that that causes, but it is an inevitable consequence of the uncertainties that we obviously face in a fast-moving situation such as that in Afghanistan.
	Work is being done on an accommodation and welfare package. One of this country's key abilities is getting forces into a theatre quickly, and we shall address the comprehensive welfare package that goes with it, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation is the best available in the circumstances, although I do not pretend that it is not pretty robust. The Prime Minister told me this morning that he is very impressed by the efforts made by British forces, which he saw for himself in Bagram the other day. We shall continue to work on the matter.
	I do not accept that there is any impact on overstretch. On the date for withdrawing the force, I referred in my statement to the time scale. We anticipate being the lead nation for three months, but we do not anticipate leaving the theatre entirely thereafter, simply because it is important that we continue to contribute to the six-month effort that the UN has mandated. We are pleased that Turkey has offered to replace the United Kingdom as lead nation and anticipate that, by the end of the three months, that will have led to a significant reduction in the number of British troops deployed.
	I have previously described to the House the importance of having robust rules of engagement, but I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman, as I did then, that this is not a peacekeeping operation. The force is for security assistance and we are there to work alongside an Interim Administration who are engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. That is a difficult and complex task, and it is a sign of the support that the international community can give that 18 countries are represented in the ISAF and prepared to put their troops on the streets of Kabul to assist.
	The hon. Gentleman's questions about a wider involvement do not address the matter of the kind of force that has been and will continue to be deployed in Afghanistan. The force is there to support the Interim Administration as they struggle with the difficulties of restoring Afghanistan to the international community.

Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the role that they have played in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. I know that the contribution made by British forces is much appreciated. I particularly want to ask him about reports that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been unable to gain access to prisoners. Will he set out the status of prisoners being held in Afghanistan? Are they held under the Geneva convention or not? On what basis are prisoners being sent to the United States or Cuba or being held in Afghanistan?

Geoff Hoon: I would expect all prisoners held in Afghanistan to be subject to the Geneva convention and we would expect that, ultimately, the ICRC will have access to them.

Michael Moore: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of the statement and I welcome its content. We on these Benches continue to support the deployment of UK troops under the Bonn agreement of 5 December and UN resolution 1386 of 20 December. We congratulate the Ministry, and in particular General McColl and his team, on getting themselves into such a state of preparedness at this early stage. However, I seek clarification of certain points in the statement.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the rules of engagement are robust enough to ensure the safety of the British troops deployed in this exercise? Will he further clarify the time scale he has mentioned? In particular, has the three-month period begun; if so, at what point did it begin? He was careful to say that British troops would not be withdrawn completely at the end of the three months; what scale of operation does he expect Britain to continue to support after that?
	Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the United Nations mandate is flexible enough to allow the troops to ensure the safety of Afghan civilians? Will he also clarify the role of the UN Secretary-General? Resolution 1386 specifically asks the force to report to the Secretary- General. It is important to understand the relationship between that and the line of command to the United States.
	Many of our armed forces have been in the region under Operation Veritas. When does the Secretary of State expect them to be either redeployed or returned home—or are they being retained in the area for possible deployment in other theatres, should the situation develop further?

Geoff Hoon: As I said on the last occasion, it is important for the rules of engagement to be robust and to provide for the safety and security of our armed forces. I assure the House that that is the case.
	I expect the three-month period to run from the point at which the force becomes fully operational. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date today, but I am sure that the House will be informed. It will depend on the extent of the logistical problems involved in conveying a large force and its supplies to a difficult environment within an appropriate time scale. There are uncertainties in the region at present, and it is important for us to take them into account. If all goes according to our current plans, however, I shall expect the period to start very shortly.
	As I said in my statement, this is a UN-mandated force, and regular reports to the Secretary-General are of course involved. As I have also said, however, the force's role is to assist the Interim Administration. It is not there to perform a peacekeeping role, or to police the streets of Kabul day in, day out. It is therefore the Interim Administration's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Afghan citizens, although that does not mean that the rules of engagement are not robust enough to allow our forces to intervene in appropriate circumstances.
	Obviously we will have regard to ensuring that forces are replaced in theatre when that is necessary, or allowed to return to the United Kingdom or another appropriate base when the time comes.

Ernie Ross: I welcome the statement. Other members of the defence forces will want to play their part; what implications has the deployment for our reserve forces?

Geoff Hoon: The impact on our reserve forces has already been clear. There has been a call-out order since last October, which allows us to call out individual volunteer reservists for operations resulting from the terrorist attacks in the United States. The process has worked very well to date, but we must now consider how to sustain our operations in the future. One possibility is limited further mobilisation, particularly in specialist areas, and I am considering that. It conforms to our policy of integrated and usable reserve forces as set out in the strategic defence review, and although we have not yet made a decision, we may do so in the near future.

Peter Viggers: Does the Secretary of State agree that we should not underestimate the difficulty of recent operations, and that all those involved in the planning and implementation of the operations in Afghanistan deserve our heartfelt appreciation? I join those who have paid tribute to the courage, determination and skill of our armed forces.
	Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if we continue to expose our troops to hazard in an area with a primitive infrastructure, they will have first-class medical support?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. He is right to say that it is a difficult theatre, and it does not pay to underestimate the problems that our forces have already faced and will continue to face in Afghanistan. I am also grateful for his tribute to the armed forces. I have said that a British medical force will be deployed, alongside medical units from other countries, and access to up-to-date medical facilities is a vital aspect of support for any deployed force. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be the case.

Ian Lucas: Further to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), can my right hon. Friend clarify whether all alleged terrorists in Afghanistan, including those held by US forces, will be dealt with in due course under the auspices of the UN, through the International Criminal Court?

Geoff Hoon: I mentioned earlier the UK's expectation that all prisoners will be covered by the Geneva convention. I cannot go further, because it is not my responsibility to determine how the Interim Administration or the US should deal with prisoners. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not the responsibility of the United Nations to deal with those matters either. In international law, the Geneva convention applies and that is the best statement that I can give of British policy.

Gerald Howarth: Given that we train our troops for war fighting and given—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said—that our troops have played a distinguished role in the offensive alongside our American counterparts in what has been a most successful operation, can the Secretary of State tell us why Canadian troops are being deployed in Kandahar to assist the Americans in the offensive activities that are still necessary to rid Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, and why our troops are restricted to their present role? The Secretary of State says that that role is not peacekeeping, but I am not sure what else it is. It certainly does not mean involvement in the offensive activity.

Geoff Hoon: Again, I would be delighted to answer questions on behalf of the Canadian Defence Ministry, but I am not in a position to do so. As for war fighting, some 5,000 British troops are engaged in continuing operations in and around Afghanistan. They are doing their job magnificently, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect. Equally, the international community has assumed a separate responsibility, which the UK has taken on as lead nation, to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I am sure that with a moment's reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is equally important, having dealt with the threat that the Taliban regime posed to international security, that we should ensure that the Interim Administration have the opportunity to rebuild Afghanistan, if for no other reason than to avoid a further threat from that part of the world. After all, we got into the difficulties with Afghanistan because of the failure of the international community after the Russian withdrawal to recognise that Afghanistan could pose a threat beyond its borders. We must avoid at all costs repeating that mistake.

Chris Mullin: To what extent is it anticipated that our troops will play a role in securing the distribution of aid? The Secretary of State will have seen reports that people in the interior of Afghanistan are surviving on grass, and it is important that aid reaches them as quickly as possible. Aid seems to be reaching the country, but it then appears to be stockpiled instead of being distributed in some of the more difficult areas.

Geoff Hoon: That will not be a responsibility of our present force. As I emphasised earlier, its responsibilities are limited to Kabul. I have read those accounts and it is obvious that there are difficulties in certain more remote parts of Afghanistan. I know that serious attention is being given to distribution, which is the problem at present. I said in my statement that more food is now getting into Afghanistan than at any time before. The problem is making sure that once it arrives, it reaches those parts of that country that are at the moment somewhat inaccessible. However, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that every effort is being made to deal with the problems right across the country.

Michael Fabricant: It was disingenuous and unworthy of the Secretary of State to attack my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the European dimension, given that all my hon. Friend was doing was quoting the Canadian Secretary of State for Defence.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that the Prime Minister visited Bagram for two or three hours on Monday. He said in his statement that British forces are on the streets of Kabul and have been for the past two weeks. Could the Secretary of State amplify his remarks on the security position within Kabul, and say whether the Prime Minister did not visit Kabul because of security reasons? Will he answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex that has direct relation to the situation in Kabul? Annexe 1 of the Bonn agreement says that military forces in Kabul would be withdrawn where mandated forces were deployed. Has that condition now been met?

Geoff Hoon: As the build-up of the force continues, I indicated in my statement that we are well short of an operating capability there. Obviously we are in the process of implementing the Bonn agreement in what is a very dangerous environment. Nobody can underestimate the difficulties that our forces face in doing their job in Bagram and Kabul. I am not going to suggest to the House that theirs is not a demanding role. That is why we have every regard to the security and safety of any visitor to that part of the world.

Jenny Tonge: I welcome the deployment of the force—I congratulate the Government on the part that they have played—and I wish the force every success, whatever the composition of the force, particularly if a lot of European countries are involved. On the question of humanitarian aid raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), there are large areas of Afghanistan where the situation is desperate and lack of security is preventing the delivery of aid. There must be some plans for the future to extend the multinational security force to other areas, to enable those people to be fed.

Geoff Hoon: I have emphasised the nature of the Bonn agreement and the agreement entered into by the international community with the Interim Administration. It is not to extend the activities of the security force beyond Kabul. That is not to say that efforts are not being made inside Afghanistan by relevant international organisations and the Interim Administration to ensure the effective distribution of aid. That work will continue and it is supported by the international community by ensuring that large amounts of aid are provided.
	The issue, as the hon. Lady has quite fairly indicated, is security and distribution. She knows a good deal about the situation in Afghanistan; the problems faced particularly in the most inaccessible parts of the country were caused by the failure of three successive harvests and by three years of drought. They are not attributable to the security situation directly, or to the military conflict. That is not in any way to underestimate their seriousness, nor to underestimate the determination of the international community to help resolve them.

Angus Robertson: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and I thank him for providing me with a copy before he spoke. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I put on record our support for the security force and reiterate our support for the military operations against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I especially support those from my constituency and RAF Kinloss who are serving in our armed forces.
	I wish to reinforce some of the points made today in terms of the interaction between the military and humanitarian operations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees this morning reported problems to do with distribution and security in Kandahar and Helmand provinces. The International Rescue Committee has highlighted an extreme situation in the mountainous northern region of Abdullah Ghan. The Secretary of State has explained that there is no possibility that ISAF's role and area of responsibility will be widened. If that remains the case, will he say how military units on the ground elsewhere in Afghanistan could help to secure the aid deliveries so urgently needed in parts of that country?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's early comments, but in the end he asked a question that I have sought to answer on two previous occasions already. The security force has a particular responsibility that has been agreed with the Interim Administration. Other forces in Afghanistan that belong to the international coalition are still actively engaged in rounding up the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda elements. I am confident that those forces will continue their particular military task until they are successful.
	As far as the distribution of aid is concerned, however, the extensive support given by the international community means that there is no reason why the Interim Administration should not be able to ensure the effective distribution of aid, even in those especially difficult parts of Afghanistan that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There remain some real dangers in and around the Kandahar area, and elements of the Taliban and of al-Qaeda are still active and dangerous in that part of the world. I emphasise that it is vital that those elements be rounded up and dealt with before further efforts to distribute aid are made.

Hugh Robertson: Given that the thoughts of the United States Administration are clearly turning to the next stage of the war against terrorism, what assessment has been made of the numbers and types of troops that this country might contribute to any future operation?

Geoff Hoon: Again, I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of reality. Obviously, efforts are in hand to address the threat of international terrorist organisations from other countries, but as I said in my statement, the focus of the United States and the United Kingdom remains on ensuring that the work that we began in Afghanistan is continued to a successful conclusion.

Patrick Mercer: May I begin by applauding the deployment of ISAF, and especially the work of Major-General John McColl? However, the Secretary of State has spoken about the importance of rounding up the elements of al-Qaeda that are still effective in the Kandahar area. Without dwelling on Canada's decision to deploy a light infantry battle group there, will he say why Britain has not thought fit to honour the words of the Prime Minister, who spoke of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States? Currently, only a tiny number of our special forces have been deployed in the teeth of the enemy. Have we run out of personnel in the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines or special forces? Have we run out of Guardsmen and line soldiers trained in desert and mountain warfare? Or have we run out of resolve?

Geoff Hoon: We have not run out of any of those elements. We deploy the right types of forces to do the job that is required of us. As I said, up to 5,000 of Britain's armed forces are actively engaged in the hunt for al-Qaeda and remaining elements of the Taliban. They are ensuring that precisely those tasks to which I assume that the hon. Gentleman was referring are completed.

Point of Order

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please have a word with Mr. Speaker and ask him if he would be kind enough to consider having discussions with those who arrange our business to ensure that, when a topic of crucial interest and importance arises, there is adequate time to debate it? I make no criticism of the 10-minute limit imposed on speeches by Back Benchers today, but the House of Lords has had two full days to debate the matter of reform. By contrast, the statement that we have just heard will limit our debate to just five hours. I appreciate that the matter is not under Mr. Speaker's direct control, but I am sure it would be much appreciated if, on behalf of the House, he could have some conversations with those who regulate our business.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but he has already indicated that the matter is really one for business questions.

THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,
	That the Speaker have leave of absence tomorrow to attend the funeral of Jennifer Brown, daughter of the Right honourable Member for Dunfermline East.—[Mr. Woolas.]

House of Lords Reform

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Robin Cook: When I presented the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, I promised that the Commons would have a full opportunity to debate the Government's proposals within the consultation period. We are within the consultation period and this debate fulfils that commitment. The contributions to the debate can inform the period of reflection that must follow the end of the consultation period.
	There would not be much point in our providing this day for debate if it did not permit Members who favour a different design for the second Chamber to express those views. I anticipate that we will hear from a number of them this afternoon. The White Paper is, after all, a consultative paper. It invited views on its proposals—

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Robin Cook: I have hardly begun, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me a little, I promise to give him priority.
	The White Paper invited views on its proposals and, on some questions, it set out options for discussion. However, there are two points on which the White Paper is robust and on which the Government will not compromise.
	The first is that the hereditary principle has no place in a modern Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Government took the historic step of breaking the dominance of the hereditary vote in the House of Lords. However, there remain 92 hereditary peers. We are the only Parliament in Europe which still permits members of the legislature to vote on the laws of the nation on no other basis than that of privilege of birth. The White Paper finally severs the link between the hereditary peerage and a seat in the House of Lords.

Eric Forth: Given the vehemence of the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the hereditary peers and the support that he has from his colleagues, will he therefore guarantee that there will be a Bill on the reform of the House of Lords during this Parliament, and that under no circumstances will he allow the hereditaries to remain beyond this Parliament?

Robin Cook: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is indeed our intention to make sure that a Bill is brought before the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the course of this Parliament. That, after all, is the whole point of this debate—to establish the weight of gravity that will enable us to bring forward such a Bill.

Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robin Cook: I think that I owe it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) to give way first to him, as I promised to give him priority.

Chris Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does what he is saying about the consultation process mean that if the consultation showed that people wanted a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber, the Government would then bring forward such proposals?

Robin Cook: I will address the question of a wholly elected second Chamber in the course of my remarks. I have grave concerns about a wholly elected second Chamber for reasons that I shall put before the House. On the broad principle, of course we will listen to what is said during the consultation period. In the period of reflection that will follow, we will see where we can find the centre of gravity in order to move forward with reform.
	The second core principle of the White Paper is that the second Chamber of Parliament must reflect the broad political balance in the country. The Conservative party remains the largest single party in the House of Lords, despite successive record defeats in general elections. I hope that, even among the Conservative party, this debate will establish that there is a consensus that a modern second Chamber must more fairly represent the balance of how Britain votes.
	That is why the White Paper proposes a new statutory appointments commission that will determine independently the proportion of political appointments to the Lords in line with the distribution of votes for the parties cast at the previous general election. That will remove from the Government of the day the right to determine for themselves the political balance of new appointments. Never again will it be possible for a Government to use their political patronage to guarantee themselves a secure majority in the House of Lords, as the Conservative party did throughout its 18 years in office.
	Indeed, given the distribution of votes in general elections, never again will any one party hold an outright majority in the second Chamber. That will make it a real check and balance on the majority in the Commons, which it was not during those 18 years of a Conservative majority in both the Commons and the Lords.
	I am confident that the great majority of Members will welcome the removal of the hereditary principle and will support a second Chamber that is more broadly—

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Robin Cook: I may well turn out to be wrong. I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful. If the Leader of the House wants the other place to be an effective check on this place, why has it proved necessary for the Prime Minister to appoint so many people of his own persuasion to enter that place, thereby reducing significantly its capacity to act as a check on this House?

Robin Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to respond to that misconception. Throughout the Conservative years, there were two Conservatives to every Labour person appointed to the other place. Throughout the years since 1997, we have made only a minority of the political appointments to the House of Lords—a restraint that was never shown by the last two Prime Ministers.

Andrew Tyrie: rose—

Robin Cook: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's wish to intervene, but at the moment I want to make progress.

Andrew Tyrie: It is on that point.

Robin Cook: How can I resist?

Andrew Tyrie: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the facts he will find that, until last year, it was not the case that only a minority of Labour peers were appointed. This Prime Minister was the first ever to appoint a majority from his own side in his first three years in office. Secondly, the main reason why such a small number of Labour life peers were appointed during the 1980s was that Labour refused to nominate any.

Robin Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong on that last point. However, he has confirmed that over the four and a half years of this Labour Government we have appointed only a minority of Labour peers. We still do not have the majority that he attributes to us in the House of Lords. We are still only the second largest party there. I very much doubt whether Baroness Thatcher would have tolerated for four and a half years her party, through appointment, being only the second largest in that Chamber.
	I said that I was confident of a welcome for the two core principles. Of course, I recognise that not all Members who support reform and those principles of the White Paper will necessarily support all the solutions by which it achieves those principles. What is now urgent is to find the package that would establish the greatest consensus among those Members of Parliament and the public.
	The sole reason why Westminster has entered the 21st century still dignified by the presence of hereditary peers is that those who wanted reform could never agree on what to put in its place. I have heard many references in the past 48 hours to the alliance in the 1966 Parliament between Michael Foot and Enoch Powell to halt the proposals for reform. One of them wanted more reform and the other wanted no reform. Between them, they stopped any reform for 30 years. We must not let history repeat itself. The year 1911 is so long ago that many Members may have forgotten the preamble to the first Parliament Act—

Peter Bradley: Not in the Lords.

Robin Cook: I defer to my hon. Friend's greater wisdom on that matter.
	The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 stated:
	"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation".
	The authors of the Act turned out to be correct. It was another 90 years before the hereditary basis of the House of Lords was broken. I do not want the next stage of reform to be delayed another 90 years because we cannot agree on an alternative.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the Bill that will be introduced will provide a permanent solution to the reform of the House of Lords, or will it be an interim stage towards yet further reforms in the years ahead?

Robin Cook: I personally do not see much point in our introducing a Bill if it does not stand a reasonable test of time. However, no Bill introduced on any subject or any issue of public debate can necessarily be the last word. It is in the character of Parliament that we evolve over the decades and centuries. What is important is that we achieve the right balance between a Bill that pretends to be the ultimate statement and a Bill that will nevertheless stand for a reasonable period and achieve progress that those who back it regard as worth while and worth the effort.

Anne Campbell: Does the Leader of the House agree that any Bill must clearly state the ultimate aim of proportional representation for the House of Lords but also allow for a transitional phase to enable us to see how those proportions will be achieved over time?

Robin Cook: Obviously, any Bill that is presented must in its legal text seek to give effect to its purpose but, having studied the matter over the past six months, I see no way in which reform can be achieved without a transitional period. That is not to say that the Bill should not in itself state what will be the situation at the end of that transitional period.
	I was saying that although there is support for the principles, we must ensure that we find sufficient agreement on one alternative to make progress. I would therefore ask those who have come to the Chamber not to praise the Government's package but to bury it at least to be clear in their mind about the alternative that they would put in its place. That applies particularly to the official Opposition.
	Last night, the Conservative leader in the Lords braved "Newsnight". He was asked whether he agreed with the statement:
	"Your MPs are split from what your peers are saying",
	to which the noble and candid Lord replied, "Oh, absolutely."
	This morning—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are pointing at us, but in these circumstances there is comfort in numbers. This morning I read in my Daily Telegraph that last night the shadow Cabinet decided on a policy. I would ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): do tell. Let us know the new policy. For a century the Conservative party has championed the hereditary principle. In their time in government, the Conservatives never once proposed that there should be a single elected Member of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] Indeed, I see that some of them are still not up on the new policy agreed last night. In the last Parliament, they sacked Lord Cranborne for pulling the embroidered rug from under the feet of the hereditary peers—an action for which he deserved applause, not his P45.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst himself said in the debates in the last Parliament that he had
	"no problem defending the long-standing hereditary element of the House of Lords".—[Official Report, 10 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 1190.]
	He and his party have a lot of words to swallow if they are to be convincing when they say that they are now the champions of a democratic second Chamber. I would only suggest that they make a start today on that process of swallowing.
	I recognise that the question of composition is the issue on which there has been most debate on the White Paper. Before I address that question, we should first be clear about what we see as the functions of a second Chamber. We cannot decide on the composition of a second Chamber unless we first decide what is its function.
	The Government's view is that the second Chamber should remain a Chamber of revision of legislation, of scrutiny of Government decisions, and of deliberation on public policy. It should have the capacity to recommend policy and it should have the power to delay legislation that requires second thoughts, but it should not have the right to compel the Commons to change the view of its elected majority.
	If the second Chamber is to discharge those functions in the public interest, it is essential that it should contain some members elected by the public. That is why the White Paper proposes for the first time that there should be members directly elected by the public to the second Chamber.
	That principle of direct elections to the second Chamber has been broadly welcomed. The precise proportion proposed by the White Paper of those to be directly elected has not enjoyed quite such a welcome. That will be one of the issues on which the Government will need to reflect in light of the views expressed in this debate and in the country.
	However, I would place firmly on the record my anxiety about a wholly elected second Chamber. I have served three decades in the House of Commons and I do not wish to see the supremacy of this place undermined. The White Paper starts from the principle that the House of Commons will remain the pre-eminent Chamber. It will retain the right to the final decision on whether legislation can become law and it will retain the sole right to decide legislation on taxation. The right to form a Government of the United Kingdom will depend on whether the Government can command a majority in the House of Commons alone.

David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when it appeared to be the case, in the late 1980s, that our party was in favour of a directly elected second Chamber, I was among those Labour MPs who argued that we should not go down that road because, whatever might be written in the powers, the fact would remain that the directly elected House of Lords would be in direct competition with this House? Will he bear it in mind, however, that if there is to be a directly elected element—I firmly believe that there should be, as I argued in written evidence to the Wakeham commission— it should be more than 20 per cent. and a minimum of one third? Under no circumstances should the second Chamber be entirely directly elected; it would be wrong to take that path.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend and I have, broadly speaking, similar periods of service in the House and I fully share his concern to preserve the pre-eminence of this House and his anxiety that it would be impossible to do so in the event that there was a wholly directly elected second Chamber. No written document would be strong enough to withstand the challenge to the supremacy of the Commons by a second Chamber that felt that it had equally good democratic legitimacy. Over time, a wholly elected second Chamber would seek to approach parity with the Commons—perhaps even, as in the case of the United States Senate, to achieve more than parity with the Commons.

Gordon Prentice: Many Labour Members simply do not accept that. It is an assertion, not a statement of fact. If the powers and functions of the second Chamber are to be tightly circumscribed, what is wrong with having an elected upper House?

Robin Cook: Plainly, I have failed to carry my hon. Friend with me and I must try harder. I fully admire the extent to which he is vigilant about his rights to represent the people who sent him to this place and active in using the House to pursue those interests. I ask him to contemplate how he would react if he found himself returned as a member of a wholly elected second Chamber and was then told that he had no right to vote on the taxation of his electors, no right to block—rather than delay—any law that was binding and no prospect of questioning Cabinet Ministers running the public services. I know my hon. Friend well enough to know that in those circumstances he would commence a vigorous campaign to ensure that he had the rights to do those things and to represent his people.

Malcolm Savidge: I seem to remember that when we debated the Scotland Act 1998 a number of people made similar points, arguing that the Members of the House who came from Scotland would try to interfere with the Scottish Parliament. Most of us recognise fully what we are elected to this place for, and we vote on that basis.

Robin Cook: I am not sure that I recognise that as a parallel case in the circumstances. I would also say to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that of course we can—I would be enthusiastic about it if I were ever faced with such an outcome—write down and tabulate in statute what should be the limited functions of the House of Lords. I just do not believe that that tablet of stone would stand the test of time when confronted by a wholly democratically elected House of Lords that was pressing to change it, and which might sometimes find itself pressing for changes with the support of public opinion. But there is another reason why—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Cook: I fully understand that many of my hon. Friends wish to intervene on that point, but I shall make progress because many of them also wish to take part in this debate.
	The limited functions of a second Chamber do not require it to mirror the democratic mandate of the House of Commons. On the contrary, the second Chamber will be better able to fulfil its role of deliberation and a more valuable forum in which difficult issues can be discussed openly if its debates are informed by the expertise and authority of people with a lifetime of distinction.
	Parliament can benefit from a forum that can tap the experience of people who have devoted their lives to courses other than Parliament, such as science, the arts, the voluntary sector and business. This may seem strange to me, and perhaps to some of my colleagues, but it is a fact of life that only a minority of the population actually enjoy the prospect of standing for election. If we want to preserve and improve the standing of the second Chamber as a place that can draw on the expertise and first-hand knowledge of those who have not stood for election, we need to preserve an alternative entry to the House of Lords for independent Members.
	That is why the White Paper proposes for the first time that there should be a new statutory appointments commission that takes the appointment of those independent Members out of political patronage. The White Paper proposes that the commission should have the duty to appoint independent Members to form 20 per cent. of the new reformed second Chamber. There has been much media criticism of the first batch of Members chosen by the present Appointments Commission.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robin Cook: No, I shall finish this point.
	I invite hon. Members to consider the individuals who were brought into the House of Lords through that new transparent system. They include Valerie Howarth, chief executive of Childline, which she built up from a small charity to a national body. She has brought her expertise to proceedings in the House of Lords on child poverty. They include Mr. Amir Bathia, who has a long record of voluntary work, including as trustee of Oxfam. He has brought that voluntary sector experience to debates in the House of Lords on immigration and pre-school education.
	Those people also include other distinguished members of Britain's ethnic communities, such as Dr. Michael Chan, who has a distinguished lifetime of contributing to the NHS as a paediatrician and as a professor in ethnic health. The House of Lords has benefited from his expertise in its debates on health. The truth is that those people would never have been likely to put themselves forward for election as party candidates and that they could not have taken part in those debates without an alternative entry system.

Harold Best: Does my right hon. Friend accept that such elected expertise probably exists in this Chamber and that it could equally exist in another elected Chamber?

Robin Cook: As Leader of the House, I would be the last person to undermine the status, experience, expertise and the calibre of the House of Commons. No one is saying anything other than that the House of Commons is the wholly democratically elected Chamber, on which its prerogatives rest. If we were to exclude those voices altogether, the debates in the second Chamber would be poorer, and it does not seem unreasonable that 20 per cent.—only a fifth of the total membership—should be available to those independent voices.

Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robin Cook: I shall give way, but then I must make progress.

Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House will be aware that voting shares and non-voting shares exist under company law. Why has he not considered allowing certain people—such as the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and, indeed, the Law Lords—to attend and debate in the House of Lords without having a right to vote?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion has been reflected in some of the responses to the consultation exercise, and it is obviously open to us to consider and to the House to reflect on that suggestion. I am not sure whether I would necessarily wish to constitute a second Chamber in which there was a very clear cleavage between the status, standing and rights of its individual Members, but that is obviously a consideration.
	For those reasons, we believe that the right solution for House of Lords reform is to have a mixed membership of elected and appointed Members. That principle of mixed membership also appears to have the support of a majority of the public. The two most recent opinion polls show that only 30 per cent. of the public supports a wholly elected membership of the second Chamber. However, that still leaves us with a very difficult judgment—it must be a matter of judgment—about where the balance should be struck between elected and appointed Members. That is why the first of the six questions posed in the White Paper is whether the proposed balance between elected and appointed members is right.
	Many hon. Members have already made it clear to me—some of them on more than one occasion—that they do not think that the proposed balance is the right one. I hope that today's debate can take us an extra step beyond that by establishing whether there is an alternative that would command a centre of gravity of opinion in support of reform.

David Chaytor: Is it not the case that the composition of the overwhelming majority of bicameral Parliaments in the world is wholly elected? Is there any evidence that those countries have worse records of government or social stability than the United Kingdom, or that there is permanent gridlock between their two Houses?

Robin Cook: I considered that matter carefully last summer, when we were developing the White Paper, and it is not the case that most bicameral Parliaments are wholly elected. Many of them, probably the majority, have a significant elected element, but many draw their democratic mandate not from direct elections, but from indirect elections. Indeed, in our closest comparators in Europe, it is commonplace in France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands for the composition of the second Chamber to come predominantly from indirect elections from regional government.
	I am conscious that some of my colleagues view that as a way to increase the democratic element in the House of Lords, but when the Wakeham commission investigated that option, it found no support for it among the regional or devolved bodies. One of the issues that can be resolved in the consultation exercise is whether that remains the case and whether the regional and devolved bodies would be interested in a route of indirect election as a supplement to direct elections and the democratic mandate of some of the second Chamber's Members.
	There are several subsidiary questions. I shall not detain the House with them for long, but it is important to put them before the House for debate. One of the other issues raised in the White Paper is whether the 15-year term of membership proposed by the Wakeham commission is too long for the elected or appointed members. Is it necessary to change the remuneration of Members of the second Chamber from the present system of daily allowances, especially if there is a wish to elect more of its Members?
	Finally, the White Paper invites views on the circumstances in which Members should be expelled from the second Chamber. Members of the House of Commons can be expelled on the grounds of imprisonment under a sentence of more than one year. No similar provision exists for the present House of Lords. If we seek a reformed second Chamber that will command respect, we must protect it against Members who bring it into disrepute.
	The Government have put House of Lords reform out to consultation because we want to build on the basis of the broadest possible consensus for reform. This is the national Parliament of the British people. That is why we seek the widest consultation on the design of its second Chamber. A number of hon. Members have differences with some of the proposals in the White Paper, and we want to explore those differences in this debate, but most Members want reform to proceed, and I ask the House to recognise the far-reaching extent of reform on which the White Paper is based.
	The reforms will secure four objectives of principle: they will remove the last of the hereditary peers from Parliament; they will introduce the first ever elected peers into the House of Lords; they will put the appointment of independent Members outside political patronage; and they will secure a political balance in the House of Lords that reflects the views of the British public in the most recent general election. I invite support for those four objectives of principle from all hon. Members who want a modern second Chamber—one that will not compete for power with the House of Commons, but will complement the House of Commons as a Chamber of revision and be in touch with the Britain of today, not the Britain of yesterday.

Eric Forth: Madam Deputy Speaker,
	"The House of Lords should be replaced by an elected second chamber".
	These are the words of the Prime Minister in Cardiff in 1994.
	"Labour will abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a proper democratically elected second Chamber with a new electoral system to go with it".
	These are the words of the Prime Minister at the 1993 Labour party conference.
	"I think it would be very important to avoid the perception of the biggest quango in our nation's history".
	These are the words of the Lord Chancellor in 1997.
	Having set the background to the debate, let me do that very modern, but for me rather uncharacteristic thing, and try to identify common ground between the Opposition and the Government.

Anne Campbell: Does the shadow Leader of the House recall that, in 1999, he stated that he had no problem defending the long-standing hereditary element in the House of Lords? Does he still agree with that view?

Eric Forth: I think that I said that in the context of our response to what the Government were then doing. My view then and my view now is that the hereditary element provided a splendidly robust and independent counterweight to the Government and to the House of Commons. I still hold to that view.

Glenda Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth: Let me answer the first intervention. I ask the hon. Lady to be patient.
	The issue now is how we can best replace the robustly independent element that served this country well for centuries with something that is at least effective. I am not here today to say that we should return to a hereditary element; I am here to look forward. However, I have no hesitation in confirming that those were the words that I said then, and I have explained why I said them.

Glenda Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's definition of independent in the context of the House of Lords apply to a body that during my lifetime—and, I would argue, for the whole of the last century and even before—was firmly tucked in the pocket of the Conservative party?

Eric Forth: I wish that had sometimes been the case. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who had the privilege, as I did, to serve in government for a number of years will well recall that one of the primary questions asked during the preparation and passage of legislation was, "Will this get through the Lords? Will the Lords accept it?" As those Labour Members who have had the privilege of being here for more than one or two parliamentary terms will recall, the Conservative Government were, indeed, held to account very frequently by the House of Lords even when it was predominantly a hereditary body. My recollection in and out of government—as a Minister and Government Back Bencher—is somewhat at odds with the hon. Lady's.

Malcolm Savidge: The right hon. Gentleman says that the House of Lords could be awkward to Conservative Governments, but surely he is an ideal exemplar of how awkward Conservatives are still Conservatives.

Eric Forth: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that high praise. I hope that I can continue to meet his description.
	I was saying that I wanted to try to seek common ground between the Opposition and the Government, and I believe that there is some. We agree that there should be a second fully effective parliamentary Chamber. Indeed, we agree with the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor that I quoted a moment ago when they said that the second Chamber should at least be substantially elected to give it democratic integrity and credibility. We agree with the Lord Chancellor when he said in 1997 that the second Chamber must be "above patronage". It should be visibly and palpably above criticism, not a quango.

Patrick Cormack: When my right hon. Friend says that we agree that the majority of the second Chamber should be elected, for whom is he speaking?

Eric Forth: I did not say that. I said that the second Chamber must at least be substantially elected. Those were the words I used; those are the words I read. That is why I am, uncharacteristically, going to read most of this speech. It will save me from exactly the sort of pungent point that my hon. Friend has just made.

David Chaytor: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the range of percentages between which his definition of "substantially" falls?

Eric Forth: No. It will not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that I had anticipated that I might be asked that question, so I have armed myself with the words that were used by my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde in another place in yesterday's debate. He said that Her Majesty's Opposition in both Houses had
	"accepted the invitation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and laid out in the consultation; that is, that we should respond by the end of the month."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 570.]
	That is what we shall do.

Fiona Mactaggart: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. As the originator of an early-day motion that has been signed by many Members and that refers to the word "substantially", I have discussed with colleagues what they mean by that. The overwhelming view of all those to whom I have spoken—most of the signatories—is that "substantially" must mean at least half the Members of the second Chamber.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am in substantial agreement with her. However, she and the House will learn by the end of the month what we mean by "substantially". I will not be tempted to tell her today.

Peter Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman reveal to us the temperature of those on the Conservative Benches? I have signed the early-day motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned, but I am not aware of any Conservative signing it to support the principle of substantial election.

Eric Forth: I must correct the hon. Gentleman—there are a number of Conservative signatories to the early-day motion. We have gone to some lengths to allow for the opinions of my parliamentary colleagues in both Houses to be expressed and to be gathered. Meetings and consultations have been held and, in whatever direction we proceed, it will be in full knowledge of the views held by my colleagues in both Houses. That is the way in which we proceed, and that is the way in which we have proceeded in this case. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that they have had ample opportunity to express their views on this matter.

Paul Tyler: I have read with interest the Hansard reports of the debate in the other place and I have failed so far to find any Conservative speaker who wished to have any elected element at all. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case?

Eric Forth: It is fair to say that the perspective of Members in another place is somewhat different from the perspective of colleagues in this place. That is necessarily as it should be, but we should always bear that in mind when we give great weight and consideration, as we will, to the views expressed in another place about its future.

Andrew Tyrie: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth: I will, but the House will want me to make progress because many Members wish to speak.

Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) might care to take a look at the speech of Lord Goschen and a number of other speeches made by Conservatives. They all supported the principle of election.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
	I was about to say that we agree with the sentiments expressed in 1993 in "A New Agenda for Democracy—Labour's Proposals for Constitutional Reforms". It stated:
	"a second chamber is a necessary and important check on the power of the first".
	However, if I am to be criticised for going too much into the past—fortunately, it is about the only thing for which I have not yet been criticised—and for selecting quotations made mysteriously before the Labour party was in government, I shall refer to the early-day motion that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) tabled, which has attracted 177 signatures.
	The early-day motion was initiated by six of the hon. Lady's colleagues in the Labour party and, by my reckoning, more than 130 Labour Members have signed it. It states:
	"this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected."
	It is in that context that we are entitled to assess the direction in which the White Paper wishes to take us.
	If we take the assertions of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor in their earlier incarnations and the contents of the early-day motion, it is true to say that the proposals in the White Paper are inadequate. I will argue that they are incoherent and lack consistency and credibility. Eight key proposals are enumerated on page 7 of the White Paper. I could probably endorse three or four of them, but by no means every one. There is some shared ground, but I fear that there are substantial differences on the essential elements, which I suspect will be reflected in the debate.
	I challenge much of the analysis that underpins the Government's proposals. It is apparent from some of the statements in paragraph 16 on page 9 where their ideas start to go astray. For example:
	"General Elections return individual MPs who are expected to look to the interests of their constituents irrespective of Party affiliation."
	Tell that to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden); he did not seem to think that. In fact, he thought so little of it that he left the Labour party to cross the Floor of the House, as he said at the time, to have the freedom that the White Paper asserts should belong to all Members of Parliament.
	How about the statement:
	"The Party which secures a majority has the right to form a Government and . . . to carry through the programme set out in its election Manifesto"?
	Does that mean irrespective of all changes in circumstances? Does it mean only the measures in the manifesto? Does it mean regardless of any revisions that may be made by the second Chamber, which is crucial to this debate? All those matters are important glosses on what appears on the face of it to be an unarguable statement.
	It is no surprise to me that the Government wish to reassert so vigorously, as indeed the Leader of the House just did, the doctrine of the absolute primacy of the House of Commons. However, they have made the Commons their creature to an unprecedented extent, and they continue that process through the so-called modernisation procedure. A combination of the routine timetabling of Bills, deferred Divisions, the elimination of debates on money resolutions, timetable motions and so on, and the almost regular delay in answering parliamentary questions or the non-answers given to them, set in context the repeated assertion that the House of Commons must be supreme. What I suspect that really means in today's context is that the Government in the House of Commons shall be supreme. It is against that criterion that we have to measure the White Paper's contents.
	That would be bad enough, but when we examine the Government's attitude to what they call the reformed second Chamber, as revealed on page 11 of the White Paper, we see that the upper House
	"has the duty, and the power, to press the Government hard to justify its actions".
	That is hardly an impressive endorsement of the powers of an effective upper Chamber. It goes on to state:
	"The House of Lords is a powerful deliberative assembly".
	That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept of checks and balances to which the Leader of the House claims he is so attached. The House should notice that the other place is referred to not as a legislative body, but as a deliberative body. That important distinction gives an important insight into the Government's real thinking.
	The White Paper goes on:
	"The second chamber can question and criticise individual Ministers".
	Well, that is a real concession—except, of course, that only those Ministers who are Members of the upper House can be questioned on the Floor of that Chamber, which sets a limit on that power. It also states:
	"There is no case for giving specific new functions to the House of Lords."
	That is an assertion; it does not make the case. I pray in aid again what Lord Strathclyde said in yesterday's debate:
	"The House"—
	the House of Lords—
	"should not have its powers reduced, as the White Paper proposes. It should retain the power to reject secondary legislation; the White Paper proposes removing it. It should have more power to consider and advise on financial matters; the White Paper has nothing to say on that matter whatever. The White Paper is nothing to do with authority, with legitimacy, with democracy or even with the core proposals of the Royal Commission's report."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 569.]
	There is a case for at least looking, within the context of the balance of the powers between this place and another place, at perhaps increasing the role and participation of the upper Chamber, not reducing it as proposed.
	Having said that, the greatest difficulty arises—as the Leader of the House was characteristically generous enough to accept—on the issue of the composition of the upper House. Hardly anyone seems to support the Government's proposal on that, except the payroll and some of the wannabes on the Labour Back Benches. Funnily enough, page 17 also contains eight points—the Leader of the House seems to have a thing about eight; perhaps it is his lucky number. I can agree with five of them, but that does not get the Government off the hook. The proposal for a majority of nominated Members creates the difficulties that follow in the rest of the White Paper. For example, the statement,
	"It is sometimes argued that only direct election can provide legitimacy for the second chamber. This was not an argument accepted by the Commission or by the Government",
	sits oddly with the repeated assertion by the Prime Minister and others, including the right hon. Gentleman today, that a hereditary element in the House of Lords is an affront to democracy. It is beyond me how the Government can go on to assert that a nominated element in the House of Lords is not an equal affront to democracy, and that has never been satisfactorily explained.
	In paragraph 38, the Government argue:
	"a second chamber constituted on the same elected basis as the first chamber would be superfluous and dangerous."
	That may be so, but I am not aware that anyone is arguing that a second Chamber should be elected on the same basis as the House of Commons. Many people argue that the upper House could have a different electoral arrangement, different constituencies, a different electoral cycle and so on, and I suspect that we will hear those arguments today. However, the assertion in the White Paper does not deal with them; instead, it deals with the completely different argument, which I have heard no one make, that the upper House should be elected on the same basis as the House of Commons.
	In paragraph 39, we get to our old friend, the bogey of gridlock in the case of
	"A parallel elective basis of authority for two chambers with parallel functions".
	The Government reinforce that with a further threat that if the second Chamber were wholly elected, but on a different system from that used for the House of Commons, the two elected Chambers
	"within the Westminster system would be a recipe for gridlock and the Government therefore joins the Royal Commission in rejecting this option."
	That is a familiar argument, and it is well understood here and in another place. In some ways, it is at the heart of the differences between the Government and nearly all the Opposition parties and more than 130 Labour Back Benchers.
	Surely gridlock is not always a bad thing. It may sometimes provide an extra opportunity for deliberation, scrutiny and second thoughts before legislation is hurried through the parliamentary process. I freely admit that it would require a formal conciliation procedure between the two Houses if disagreement and gridlock arose, but that is not beyond the wit of man. We all know that the system has operated for nearly 200 years in the United States and in other contexts as well. That is not a final or definitive argument. Gridlock can, indeed, provide a safety measure if a party with a large majority in the House of Commons tries to force through a measure that is unpopular or unacceptable. That would apply whatever party was in government. In all those ways, the concept of gridlock is not necessarily the unacceptable or negative idea that is construed in the White Paper.

Patrick Cormack: For clarity, will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes, as he did a year or so ago, that we should have an American-style system, with a directly elected Senate-type Chamber? He argued passionately for that before.

Eric Forth: I believe what the shadow Cabinet believes. If I did not, I would not last long in it. My thought process, as my hon. Friend knows, is legendarily dynamic. I am capable of making infinite adjustments to my view on this and other matters.
	The White Paper asserts in paragraph 40 that a mainly elected chamber would mean that
	"independent members would virtually disappear"
	and we would
	"risk losing the potential the Lords provides to bring to Parliament the expertise and experience of those who are leaders in a wide range of national endeavours".
	But I notice that the Leader of the House, picking his words carefully as he always does, referred throughout his contribution only to a wholly elected Chamber.
	To my recollection, the right hon. Gentleman did not address the argument about a substantially elected Chamber, which could include a significant number of independent and appointed Members, so he failed to address, as did the White Paper, what is probably the preferred option of the majority of people. Very few people are saying that the upper House should be elected on the same basis as the lower House, and very few would deny that a substantially elected House could contain a significant number of independent Members, thus answering the point that the Leader made.
	It is when we turn to the White Paper's proposals on composition, however, that we see the real absurdity, because it tries to say that there will be a limited or capped membership that will be largely nominated, which, as I said earlier, must surely be an affront to democracy in the sense in which the Prime Minister and others have referred to it over the years, but at the same time, by some process that I cannot for the life of me understand, there will be representation of political parties reflecting the votes cast in the preceding general election. I cannot see how those elements can be squared.
	The White Paper goes on to talk, in a sinister way, about regional elections on the same proportional system as is used for the European Parliament. Oh, dear. If that means closed lists, then we are back, effectively, to nominations through another route. How are we to square the inherently contradictory and conflicting principles of a limited membership and a membership that reflects the result of each general election? How on earth could a House whose membership is largely nominated but fixed reflect a change as dramatic as the one that occurred in 1997? In 1974, we had two elections in quick succession, in February and October. How could the upper House reflect that degree of alteration in its composition?
	The Government's most difficult task, however, is to solve the problem of transition—the polite name for the question of how we deal with the lifers while introducing the Government's proposals. In a rare moment of realism, the White Paper says:
	"there will be a real challenge both to work towards a reduction in numbers and rectify the clear imbalance in strengths of the two main political parties in the Lords."
	It goes on to offer, as an alleged solution,
	"provision for members formally to retire before the end of their term."
	Anyone who listened to the debate in the other place, as I did, and read the account of it, as Members here have, will agree that it is unlikely that Members of another place will be persuaded, even by the charm of the Leader of the House, formally to retire from the upper House before their life term naturally expires. That is one of the great difficulties inherent in the White Paper's proposals.

Derek Wyatt: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a solution would be for life peers to vote themselves out, just as hereditary peers had to do?

Eric Forth: That is a positive, interesting proposal, which will have to be considered. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to pursue it.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of composition, will he reflect on the following point? As I understand it, he is a substantial man, but not a total man. We all understand the rush of blood to the head that we get when we have the legitimacy granted by the electorate and the problems that it would cause in the House of Lords. Under these principles, some Members of the Lords will suffer from those urges, and some will not. We are to have two species of Member, one superior to the other. Are the appointed Members to act as a brake on those who have urges inflicted on them by the electorate?

Eric Forth: That is a fair question. It will depend very much on the length of the term served by elected and appointed Members in a hybrid House, which will affect considerably their attitude towards each other. It is a legitimate question, and there are answers to it, but it remains to be seen whether different sorts of Members in a hybrid House will manage to find accommodation with each other, and it will depend on the length of term, electoral cycles and the like. Whether the appointed will envy the elected or vice versa is an interesting question to which I cannot give a ready answer.
	We still believe that the way forward is to have a joint Committee of both Houses consider the matter, to see whether we can expand the common ground that undoubtedly exists and build on the contents of the early-day motion, on what has been said in another place and on what we will hear in this debate. We want to make a genuine attempt not only to find a means of having an effective, reformed upper House but seriously to consider the role that the Commons plays in the parliamentary context. Let us not imagine that that can be done by focusing on the nature, composition and powers of the upper House without looking equally seriously at the role of this House, its relationship to the Government of the day and the dynamic that is created by one Chamber of the legislature producing the Executive and the Executive being part of it.
	Until we deliberate on all those factors together, it will be very difficult for the Government to find a way forward. We make a genuine offer. We would want to play a positive role in a joint Committee. We urge it to be set up because we fear that the White Paper is going nowhere. I do not want the Government to use the fact that their White Paper has so little support as an excuse to shelve any further reform of the upper House. That cannot be allowed to happen, and I ask the Leader of the House to give serious consideration to a joint Committee.

Chris Smith: Let us remind ourselves what, at heart, this debate is about and why it is important. It is about power and the nature of that power, how it is exercised, who determines who wields it and how the people of this country are involved in that process. Surely, what we are seeking to achieve is greater democratic and representative legitimacy in the way legislation is framed and passed and the way the Government are held to account. That must be the test of any proposals. I am afraid that I do not believe that the Government's present proposals pass that test. Quite simply, the Government have not got it right.
	There are some things on which virtually all of us can agree. First, there is no place for the hereditary principle in the legislative process. It must go. Secondly, I believe that the primacy of the Commons must be clearly established and confirmed. There can be no substitute for the direct relationship between MPs and their constituents. There is an important objective in avoiding legislative gridlock. Of course the Opposition like the idea of gridlock—it is a recipe for permanent Conservative bias in the system—but effective government requires that we seek to avoid, as far as possible, the prospect of gridlock.
	Thirdly, there ought to be a second Chamber. The Commons does not always get everything 100 per cent. right. Fourthly, the powers of the second Chamber should be broadly similar to those at present: to revise, to advise and to hold to account, but not to overturn or override the main thrust of legislation. Let us not forget that the other place has considerable powers. For example, to my grief over many years, its Members have caused enormous damage to our lesbian and gay citizens. I do not wish to remove those powers from it, but it is important to maintain its revising role, rather than a principal role of initiating and passing legislation. Finally, it makes sense to divorce the honour of a peerage from membership of a legislative assembly.
	There is broad agreement on both sides of the House on all those points. Beyond that, we enter more difficult territory, but that should not deter us from making the attempt. There will be a multitude of proposals on how to proceed, but the worst thing would be for us to do nothing as a result. We should have a genuine debate about how to achieve better democratic legitimacy without sacrificing the important principle of the supremacy of the Commons.
	I shall offer some basic principles for consideration. Any new Chamber needs to be substantially elected. In my book, "substantially" means at least 50 per cent; 20 per cent. will not do. Surely there is also a need for representatives to be sought from regional assemblies, national Parliaments and assemblies and local government. Their appointment or nomination should not be made by party leaders, but should come directly from local or regional bodies. Is there not also scope for seeking representatives who are drawn directly from other parts of society—business, trade unions, voluntary and charitable sectors and faith communities? In that context, we should end the unjustified automatic inclusion of a number of Church of England bishops. We should divorce the judicial system from the legislature, establish a separate highest court and end the automatic inclusion of judges. We should aim at a much smaller overall membership of the second Chamber. There is talk of 750 Members as a transitional figure, and 600 Members as a final total; but those figures are far too high.
	One problem that the Government have brought upon themselves has arisen from the fact that they started from the status quo, which they tried to push, pull and squeeze in a more rational direction, rather than starting with a set of principles and working from that point. We should not let the present composition and nature of the House of Lords dictate what happens in the long term. Of course, getting consensus will not be easy and there will be different options to consider. However, the present set of proposals is not the right starting point. I urge my colleagues in government, with understanding and respect, to make another start on their proposals.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Paul Tyler: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said. Rather to my surprise, I found myself agreeing also with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, particularly in his peroration—specifically, we are in danger of isolating our discussion if we do not see it in the context of the reform and modernisation of Parliament as a whole.
	I want to concentrate for a moment not on the role of the House of Lords, but on that of Parliament. What is its job and how can we make it more effective? I was interested that in his evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration this morning, Lord Wakeham admitted that his remit did not permit him to consider the reform of the House of Lords in the context of that of Parliament as a whole which, he said, was above his pay grade. That was unfortunate but perhaps inevitable, because a royal commission has to concentrate on certain things, which is another good reason for a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the issues in the round.
	It is a happy coincidence that we are discussing reform of the House of Commons in parallel with the proposals. It is an even happier coincidence that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has a long record as a parliamentary reformer, is at present Leader of the House. I remind him that he was the joint author of an agreement with the Liberal Democrats before the 1997 general election—the so-called Cook-Maclennan agreement—in which he committed himself to
	"recommendations for a democratic and representative Second Chamber".
	The White Paper before us this afternoon does not fulfil that promise.
	A holistic approach to the reform of Parliament, reviving and strengthening both Houses to enable us to hold the Executive to account, is the context in which we should be operating and is in the interests of the whole electorate. This is not necessarily an esoteric issue of interest only to the chattering classes. Every single citizen of this country should be interested in making Parliament a more effective vehicle for their concerns. Until now, I fear, the reform of the House of Lords has been of personal interest to the chattering classes, their friends and relatives—ermine-fringed anoraks, as it were—as it has concerned their own expectations. It should not be so; we should go much further.
	Before dealing with recruitment to that body, I wish to look at Parliament's job. What is this whole place about? First, it is to represent the people, constituency by constituency, by having free and open elections. That is our principal job in this House. Secondly, it is effectively to scrutinise and influence legislation and policy proposed by the Government; both Houses should be involved in that. Thirdly, it is to hold the Executive to account for all their actions. Fourthly, it is to protect the rights and liberties of citizens and, in parallel, encourage other countries embarking on parliamentary democracy. Finally, it is to provide a reservoir of able men and women from which Ministers may be recruited.

Eric Forth: Should not the hon. Gentleman have put providing the Government first on his list? Does he not agree that a genuine difficulty that we face in the reform of Parliament is how to deal with the fact that this House or legislature creates and sustains the Government at the same time that it has to hold them to account and scrutinise their activities? The fact that we in Parliament provide the Government gives rise to some of our greatest difficulties.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I was just coming to that point. Democracies in other parts of the world have approached the separation of powers in a very different way, but in this country we have dodged the issue for years. There is a good case for examining it in the round in both Houses; I accept the point that he made.
	The reform of the second Chamber, proceeding in parallel with the reinvigoration of this Chamber, must achieve greater democratic legitimacy—surely, we all share that common ground—so that its work is complementary to that of the Commons: together we can hold the Government to account more effectively. The creative tension is not between the two Houses; that is a new Labour pink herring. The creative tension is between both Houses and Whitehall. That is what it is all about, and what it should be all about. It was extraordinary that the Leader of the House again paraded the issue of the supremacy of the Commons; nobody is questioning that. What we are saying is that the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive is critical in a parliamentary democracy.
	Given that he is a great internationalist, it was not good enough for the Leader of the House to say that other bicameral systems in other parts of the world had somehow got it wrong. We in this country have a great deal to learn from other countries in that respect.
	We should be seeking to complement the work that is done in each House rather than to compete. Good government and effective scrutiny go together, as the Leader of the House has said on several occasions. That means the whole of this building will be involved if we are to achieve better government.
	Judged against those objectives, we found the royal commission recommendations woefully timid and desperately disappointing. However, in our worst nightmares we could not have believed that the Government would water down Wakeham. It was bad enough at the start, but to find that the White Paper is even worse is extraordinary.
	Paragraph 24 has already been quoted. It states:
	"There is no case for giving specific new functions to the House of Lords."
	Who says? If new democratic legitimacy is being given to the other part of Parliament, why should such proposals not be considered? There may be issues that neither place currently considers properly—a point to which I shall return.
	Surely, if greater legitimacy is given to a democratic assembly, the right of that part of the democratic system to do more work rather than less and to have more responsibility must at least be considered. For example, the Government are currently suggesting that the reserve power to veto—it is only a reserve power—should be taken away on secondary legislation. We need some checks and balances in the system, especially on European legislation. At the moment, that is an important part of the second Chamber's function. We should not be weakening an arm of Parliament in relation to its responsibilities to consider what the Government are up to, but seeking to strengthen it. We should again look at the Parliament Acts in that respect and we must learn from other bicameral assemblies that have done that most effectively.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman referred to the reserve power being taken away on secondary legislation. Is not a three-month delay a stronger power than a veto that is never used?

Paul Tyler: The veto has been used in the recent past, although I admit that it has happened only once. Hon. Members may recall that it was used very effectively and achieved a major change in respect of the government of London. As the power was rarely used and the Lords showed that they felt so strongly about the matter that it had the maximum effect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	There are a number of areas where Parliament is currently failing but where the second Chamber could have an important role. It could have such a role with regard to increased use of pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps through Joint Committees in some cases. Cross-party business planning would ensure that we did not have some of the absurdities mentioned by the Leader of the House in the context of the modernisation of this House. There could be a Select Committee on treaties. As my right hon. Friend Baroness Williams of Crosby has pointed out on a number of occasions, it is ludicrous that we have no right to examine treaties in either House. A Joint Committee may be the answer, but it is outrageous to have nobody in that role. Treaties as important as those relating to the World Trade Organisation are of great interest to our constituents, but we cannot deal with them. Perhaps there is no room on our agenda here, but there might be room in the other place.
	The royal prerogative is a huge area in which Parliament is not doing its job. Gradually and incrementally, successive Governments have expanded the royal prerogative in a completely undemocratic way. There is no answerability or accountability to us. The House of Lords, especially in the sort of format that we are considering, would have a very important role in that regard. For example, it would have a role in relation to public appointments and to providing effective questioning of what quangos are doing in the name of the Government.
	Finally, there is a role with regard to protection of some of the fundamental principles of our constitution. We are edging towards a constitutional settlement, with devolution to different parts of the United Kingdom. There must be some quasi-constitutional court to ensure that, in the process, our civil liberties are not severely diminished.
	My colleagues and I are not suggesting a huge increase in powers, but we will certainly resist any attempt to dilute the powers that the House has at the moment and we will look for ways to improve the situation.
	I deal now with the democratic legitimacy of the second Chamber. I was interested in the reference to 1911. I do not recall it, but I think that I am right in saying that it was my colleagues in the Liberal Government who had the great problem with the House of Lords at the time. I think that they were right to say that the contrast and choice were between a popular Parliament and a hereditary one. We cannot go on dodging the issue. In the end, either we want our Parliament to be answerable mainly—not substantially, but predominantly—to the electorate, or we will be fudging the issue. My colleagues and I believe strongly that we should proceed firmly and expeditiously to a second Chamber that takes its authority from its democratically elected mandate—full stop. By the end of the transitional period, there should be no more political appointments. Perhaps that period will be 10 years or even longer, but at the end of it we cannot have any more corrupt patronage. That must go. In the meantime, we must ensure that we are moving in that direction.
	It was extraordinary this morning to hear Lord Wakeham referring to this situation. At one stage, he spoke about rejecting the idea of an appointments commission for those coming from the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. He said that the people should be the appointments commission, but then backtracked again. If the people are to constitute the appointments commission, that will reflect the logic for the majority of Members of the House to be elected. I do not deny that there is a case—although I think that it is limited—for allowing a minority of independent Members of the House to sit as Cross Benchers. Incidentally, I see that Charter 88 estimates that only 10 per cent. of current life peers in the other place have any expertise that is not already available to the House, so I think that the role is limited.
	Given those circumstances, I found a recent briefing to the parliamentary Labour party extraordinary. I have a copy of the briefing and very interesting reading it makes. It states, in ringing terms:
	"A wholly or largely elected second chamber would be neither right nor practical".
	The last four words are underlined, which shows how strong those feelings are. I understand from a number of hon. Members that the briefing did not get universal applause at yesterday's meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. It contains no logic to follow up the statement that I have mentioned. It has been made—and, indeed, it is underlined—but there is no rationale to follow it. That is extraordinary. After all, this is the party that, for generations, and ever since I have been interested in politics, has attacked the House of Lords as undemocratic. If anything goes wrong there, there is a tendency to say, "They're unelected; you needn't take any notice of them." If 70 or 80 per cent. are still going to be unelected, that will be a very difficult problem.
	I accept that there is a problem in terms of transition. Getting rid of peers at speed—let us put it mildly—will not be easy. I understand that somebody at the parliamentary Labour party meeting who was asked how many peers there should be referred to the number of lamp posts in the United Kingdom, as if stringing them up would be the quickest way to achieve attrition. I must warn the House that, even if that is thought to be too dramatic and drastic, leaving the matter to the attrition of the grim reaper will take a long time. The actuarial assessment of one of my noble colleagues in the other place—he may be slightly morbid, as well as mathematically expert—is that it will be well into the middle of this century before we get down to a sensible number. The average age of peers before they eventually decide to go not just to another place but another world is increasing. In those circumstances, we simply cannot accept the idea that a House of 700 or 750 Members will exist throughout our political lifetime.

Mark Fisher: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if, like me, he supports a wholly elected Chamber, none of those problems should arise? Even if there is a transition with a small element of non-elected people, the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that they should select their own small number, just as with hereditary peers, is a very simple solution and would work perfectly well.

Paul Tyler: I agree and accept that that may be a good way forward.
	We must accept that the objective for the end of the transitional period should be a smaller House, perhaps of 300 Members but certainly not much more. We should go for a House that is free of all direct party political patronage and that has minimal obligation or deference to the Executive. That point has already been made by several hon. Members. There should be no Member of Parliament clones or aspirant Members of Parliament. It has been suggested that a minimum age should be set for Members of the other Chamber. I am not sure whether that is acceptable. However, if they are to be elected, we must try to ensure that candidates do not simply want to climb the greasy pole.
	What should we do? First, elections must be fixed term, and whenever possible they should not coincide with general elections. If they happen on the same day, it is almost inevitable that we shall have clones at the other end of the building. Secondly, elections must be carried out through an effective system of proportional representation, and I hope that the recommendation for the single transferable vote will be accepted. Thirdly, it is important to provide for partial changeover so that we do not have "all out" at the same time and thus make continuity difficult.
	I believe that there should also be one-term limits so that, once there, Members are not beholden to the party hierarchy for their return. I believe that most of my colleagues in both Houses support that. If half the House is elected on the same day as the European Parliament, the limit should be for 10 years—full stop, fixed term. There is thus no question of climbing back into favour with the party hierarchy.
	The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) is good for the longer term. He speaks with the authority of the only former hereditary peer who sits in this House—I remind hon. Members that he does that with a democratic mandate. If elections for the second Chamber coincided with those for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Assembly, and I hope, English regional elections on a four-year cycle, and a 12-year period was allowed so that only one third was elected at any time, that would provide for consistency and continuity but free Members of ambitions for office and of party loyalty.
	We perceive no need for retaining separate religious or legal representatives. The case for a supreme court is separate, and we have not examined it properly yet. However, there is no argument for Law Lords. Religious and legal representatives might be eligible to make up some of the small number of independent Cross-Bench Members.
	If, at the end of the transitional period—whether 10, 12 or 15 years—there is representation by but not from the devolved institutions, that should not replace the elected component. The former may be supplementary; there are some advantages to electoral colleges in the regions of England and the other national institutions. They could provide an extra element to the second Chamber, but that must not happen to the disadvantage of those who are directly elected.
	The White Paper proposals constitute the worst sort of wishy-washy compromise. They satisfy nobody, and there is no majority in either House for them. By the end of today, I believe that we shall find that the Leader of the House is well aware that that applies to Members of the House of Commons as well as to his colleagues in the other part of the building. Almost 200 hon. Members have signed the early-day motion; most are Labour Back Benchers.
	Liberal Democrat Members will work with others in all parties and in both Houses to achieve legislation that will encompass five principles. First, we should develop a comprehensive approach to parliamentary revitalisation in both Houses. Secondly, we should resist any dilution of the role of the second Chamber in dealing with primary and secondary legislation as well as scrutinising Executive action. Thirdly, we should extend parliamentary scrutiny to cover aspects of government that neither House currently examines. Fourthly, after the transitional period, we should end all party political patronage, which is no longer acceptable for a 21st century legislature. Fifthly, elections should be conducted on a PR system that gives maximum voter choice and achieves broad proportionality for voters' party support.
	We are prepared to talk to everybody on that basis and we believe that there is a consensus in the House that will achieve it.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am worried about House of Lords reform not because I am a geek about structuring the second Chamber—I can be; I have all sorts of ideas—but because I believe that we have a specific responsibility to democracy. It is not extreme to suggest that democracy is going out of fashion; it is frail and fragile. Participation in the last general election was poor, and, as those who carry the flame of democracy, we have a responsibility to feed it. I am worried about the proposals for reform because they could do the opposite. Not reforming the House of Lords would certainly do that. It is important that proposals emerge from the debate to provide for reform that reinforces democracy.
	Why is democracy important? It asserts the primacy of people in making decisions. I was interested in the contribution of Lord Norton of Louth, who said in the upper House that democracy was a bit overrated. He said that when people were asked whether they would prefer decisions to be made by an absolute expert on a subject or an elected person, 49 per cent. said that they favoured an elected person and 43 per cent., an absolute expert.
	Whatever happens, we will not get a Chamber of experts on every measure, because that is not possible. However, when offered a House of experts, the majority of people would prefer Members whom they pick. We must tell people that they have the right to choose because they are good at it, and better than the Government at picking those who should hold them to account. In reforming ourselves, we should acknowledge people's ability to choose well.
	Our behaviour in the Chamber is one of the reasons why people's confidence in the electoral system has been damaged. We are very tribal; our behaviour is summed up by "These guys are right, those guys are wrong." The House of Commons works on that basis. There is a role for that in politics. Sticking to a party line and manifestos keeps politicians straight, and it is important. However, it is not the only thing that makes politics sensible. When picking over detail and carefully considering measures that are part of a Government's programme, rather than forming that programme, it is good for people to point out that the emperor has no clothes, that a provision will not have the intended effect, and to suggest alternatives.
	It is important that such people should be at the heart of the second Chamber. They should make the major decisions. We should encourage those who are prepared to be a bit sceptical and do not necessarily follow a party line. The Wakeham committee's proposals for long terms and not allowing people to hop between Houses provided a reasonable model for rewarding and encouraging the sceptics. Ours should be the primary Chamber. We should be the people who act as tribunes of our constituencies and as the voice of the people, but the people should choose the éminences grises, the reflectors and those who say, "Hey, hang on a minute. Let's stop and think." That should be the fundamental role of the second Chamber.
	What is most depressing about the White Paper is the fact that it envisages that, in a House of 600 people, 332 will be appointed by the political parties nominating them. That number is not mentioned in most of the papers that we have been discussing, but that is what would result from the proposals in the White Paper. The White Paper and its companion documents also argue that elections are a bad thing, which is very much against the traditions of my party and of this place, and not something that we should stick to.
	I welcome the Leader of the House saying that we had to work out some fundamental principles on which to go forward. There is a job to be done here, and the White Paper can be a starting point, but we have to find a way of introducing legislation. I am one of those who believe that we have to legislate, and that we cannot continue with the hereditary element that remains in the second Chamber.
	The four principles proposed by the Leader of the House are a start. Let me remind the House of them. The first is to abolish the hereditaries. The second is to have elections, and in that respect I must stress that people will expect at least half the Members of the Chamber to be decided by the people, if we are to have elections with which people can engage and towards which they can make a commitment. The third principle is to reflect the political balance in the country. That is best done by elections, frankly. The fourth is to retain an independent element.
	I accept that there can be a place for a Cross-Bench independent element. It should not be huge; indeed, the White Paper does not propose that. It proposes an independent element of 20 per cent., which I would be prepared to accept, if that is the way to build consensus. Those Members should be genuinely independent, and they might help to make the Chamber the more deliberative, consensual and thoughtful place that we require. We should also consider other matters, such as the scope of the work of the Chamber. We are being unconfident in not giving it more powers to reflect on issues such as the World Trade Organisation.
	We have an historic opportunity here. In 1911, Parliament said, "We have to have a popularly decided second Chamber." Ninety years later, we got rid of the hereditary bit, which went half way towards achieving that, although we kept a few of them in order to get there. Now is our opportunity to create a genuinely popular second Chamber, and we must do it. If we do not, we will reinforce the process by which the people of Britain lose confidence in their legislature. If they do so, and if we contribute to that, we will damage the constitution and the fabric of the government of this country for centuries to come.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and I have much sympathy with many of the points that she made.
	It is almost exactly two years since Lord Wakeham's commission produced its report, a task that it was challenged to do within a year. It responded well, and no doubt hoped that the momentum urged on it by the Government would be matched by that Government. It is worth reminding the House that Wakeham envisaged the first elections for the upper House happening in June last year. In June 1999, we were told by Ministers that the Commission was
	"being asked to report by the end of 1999, to enable the Government to make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament by the time of the general election."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 743.]
	So after a brisk sprint round the first lap by Lord Wakeham, the baton was handed over to a jogger in rather poor shape, and it has taken the Government nearly two years to produce their response, optimistically entitled "Completing the Reform." Reading the foreword by the Prime Minister, one would have thought that the Government had simply accepted the Commission's views. He summarises Wakeham and then says:
	"The Government strongly endorses the Royal Commission's vision of the role and importance of the second chamber. It also accepts the Commission's broad framework for composing its membership."
	There is no hint there of any disagreement.
	Of course the Government do not accept the broad framework, however. They want something quite different that would undermine the legitimacy, independence and effectiveness of the second Chamber. Only when we get to the small print of the White Paper do we read some words that the late Sir Nigel Hawthorne would have enjoyed delivering:
	"There are however a number of areas where further consideration of the practical effects of certain recommendations has led the Government to consider some modification of the precise recommendations so as to ensure implementation of the Commission's principles in the most effective way possible."
	In a sentence, those words emasculate the Appointments Commission and propose shorter terms, undermining the independence of the second Chamber.
	I want to make a number of brief points indicating the way forward. First, there has been a tendency to represent the debate about Lords reform as a two-dimensional contest between the Lords and the Commons: if one gains, the other must lose. But the true picture is multidimensional, and the real contest today is not between the Lords and the Commons but between Parliament and the Executive. In that battle, the two Houses are not rivals but partners. Without waiting for the Government to determine what to do next, the two Houses need to develop stronger links with each other.
	We have an increasingly influential Liaison Committee in this House, and perhaps that should open a dialogue with the comparable body in the Lords to discuss matters of common interest. One issue about which we could talk to their Lordships is paragraph 5 of the White Paper, which says:
	"Labour supports modernisation of the House of Lords' procedures to improve its effectiveness."
	We have tasted some of Labour's modernisation down here, and although I do not criticise all of it, the motive has been the expedition of Government business, rather than better scrutiny of legislation. My strong advice to their Lordships is that they, not the Government, should decide how to improve their effectiveness.
	Secondly, the current position of a wholly appointed Chamber is unsatisfactory. The Government have asserted that the House that we now have is more legitimate and more effective. However, there is no sign of the Government respecting the new House; nor do I think that they will until its composition is changed. When the Government lose, it is just like old times: more threats and abuse. The Lords have recently defeated the Government on anti-terrorism legislation, and quite rightly so. The Government must accept the legitimacy of criticism from an effective second Chamber, and we need a House with more authority than the present one, and a Government who respect it when they lose the argument.
	My third point is on numbers. Wakeham proposed 550 Members, and the White Paper says 600. That strikes me as rather high. We have 660 Members here, a number that is scheduled to go down when we lose the presence of a number of Scottish colleagues. Even with 630, I believe that the lower House will still be too big. It is difficult to see why the revising Chamber has to have 600. No one has proposed that it should carry out the demanding constituency role that we carry out; nor is it proposed that it should provide more members of the Executive than it does at the moment. I would aim at the Wakeham maximum or below it.
	The White Paper does not make it clear how we would keep the number at 600, if more peers are to be created to get the balance right after each election. To take an unlikely scenario, let us suppose that the Liberals were the largest party after the next election. They would be entitled to more peers than the largest Opposition party—that is, 222 instead of 65. But if the number of Members is capped at 600, how on earth would we achieve that proposal?
	My fourth point is on composition. I believe that the new House should be one third non-political and appointed, and two thirds political and elected. I accept that many who would be first-class Members of the upper House do not belong to a political party and do not want to fight an election—hence the one third. I also believe that no single party should have a majority in the upper House. Keeping one third of Members non-political while dividing up the political two thirds between the major parties should ensure that no party has a majority in the upper House.
	There is an extraordinary passage in the White Paper seeking to reject this option which deserves quotation:
	"A mainly elected second Chamber would have the following, further, practical disadvantages:
	The independent members would virtually disappear."
	That is manifestly absurd. In my example of one third appointed and two thirds elected, the appointed Members—the independents—could number about 200 and might form the largest bloc in the upper House.
	I would like the two thirds who are politicians to be directly elected by open rather than closed lists. By definition, those people will not be political innocents and there is no reason for them not to go through the single gentle encounter with the electorate proposed by Lord Wakeham—an encounter much less taxing than anything we have to go through—which brings me to my next point, which is the British Rail argument: that produces the wrong sort of politician.
	There is an unspoken view in the upper House, which is, "We don't want the rough trade from the other end of the building up here." In his speech yesterday, Lord Wakeham said that that would produce
	"a second Chamber that was a clone of the other place, full of professional politicians".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 582.]
	Lord Longford put the point less tactfully two years ago:
	"We would get the dregs."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 955.]
	The anxiety about elected Members is misplaced. Behaviour in our House is less a function of the sort of people we are and more a function of the role of a Member of Parliament in the highly political dominant Chamber to which we must get re-elected.
	When the sort of people we are move from this environment to another one down the other end, our behaviour changes, and the greatest examples of that are Lords Wakeham and Hurd. When they were here, they behaved like Members of Parliament, but in the less partisan, more reflective environment of the upper House, they behave like peers. There is therefore nothing inherently suspect or inappropriate about people who want to stand for election being Members of the upper House; our former colleague, John MacKay, was one of the outstanding performers in the upper House until his untimely death last year.
	That brings me to my penultimate point—the rival mandate argument: if we have a predominantly elected second Chamber it will challenge the mandate of this Chamber. The second Chamber is clearly defined as complementary, but in the end subordinate to this one. Its powers are those given it by this House, which is pre-eminent, and they cannot be unilaterally changed. The assertion is that that settlement might be challenged and that there would be tension between the two Houses if the upper House were elected, but Members of Parliament are all elected on the same day on the basis of a party manifesto and for one Parliament. We are elected to the pre-eminent House that sustains the Executive and produces the Prime Minister. We submit ourselves for re-election.
	None of those conditions would exist for the upper House were it to be elected on the basis that I suggest or, indeed, that suggested by Wakeham. Many of its Members would not be elected at all and they would have no mandate, while those who were elected would be elected at different times on different mandates; so the notion that electing some or even most of its Members could lead to the conversion of the upper House into a rival assembly is unsustainable.
	So what do we do next? The only sensible way to resolve the issue is by a free vote on the various options, starting with the most radical—all Members elected—and then working down. On this side of the House, it is known that there is a variety of views and I see no reason for them to be restricted by the Whips. On the contrary, it would injure the standing of Parliament if either side became heavy handed.
	Thanks to the early-day motion, we know that a significant body of opinion on the Government Benches disagrees with the Government on the percentage to be elected. As a party politician, I would love the Labour Chief Whip to exercise the diplomatic skills that achieved prominence last year to dragoon her party into line, but that would be absurd, so I look forward to a sensible debate followed by unconstrained Divisions leading to legislation that passes to the statute book quickly.

Mark Fisher: I believe that in a democracy the public should decide who represents them in Parliament. For that reason, I favour a wholly directly elected second Chamber, and I suspect that there is a growing and approaching consensus for a wholly or substantially elected Chamber, as the early-day motion suggests. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) chose his words carefully, but I take it that that position is about to take hold among Her Majesty's Opposition, which is right and proper. Primacy between the two Houses has been much discussed, but the real primacy in our democracy lies with the people. Strangely, however, the electorate are not mentioned in the White Paper, or in any previous document on the subject; it is all about membership, not people's right to have a say in who represents them.
	Greater steps have been taken by the Government in the White Paper and over the past four years than at any time since 1911, so they should be congratulated, but by the end of the debate they will gain the impression that the White Paper is not "it". I doubt whether a single Member in any part of the House will speak uncritically in favour of the White Paper, and I am sure that the Leader of the House will note that.
	I want to persuade the House of four points. First, we should consider the remit and responsibilities of both Chambers. Secondly, those, rather than the method of election or the membership, are the key to it all. Thirdly, distinct roles are possible and if we achieve them we shall avoid gridlock by design. Fourthly, we need a robust and effective second Chamber, not one that is artificially constrained because we are worried about its achieving primacy.
	On the first point, we must consider the role of the second Chamber in relation to how we change the role and responsibilities of this Chamber. We all recognise that Parliament is both seen to be, and probably is, failing to impress the public with its ability to hold to account and scrutinise the Executive. The balance between the Executive and Parliament and between the Executive and this Chamber has skewed unnaturally and wrongly, and we and the Government are all the weaker for it. We must consider reforming the two Houses together, because their complementary nature is the key.
	The White Paper does not take that perspective, and its other great strategic mistake, from which many problems flow, is that it asks the wrong questions. It asks how we should get rid of the hereditary element and find an alternative basis for membership rather than the crucial questions of how to establish Chambers that will perform better democratically and how to find remits that are complementary, not competitive. I welcome the Leader of the House's having made it clear that the role of the second Chamber is much more important than the debate on membership of it. That demands that we consider the roles first, then the membership.
	What are the two roles? The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly considered an earlier stage—the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, which has weakened—and only after such consideration can the roles of the two Houses be dealt with. The second Chamber surely must be a House of scrutiny, a point excellently described by the Leader of the House, and a better House of scrutiny than at present.
	There is no case for introducing legislation in the second Chamber. This is the House of the Executive, and leaving aside private Members' Bills, it is the Government's responsibility to introduce legislation, which, first and foremost, should come from here. I hope that the Leader of the House's proposals on loosening the spill-over are accepted. If they are, the ability to introduce Bills in the second Chamber will no longer be important.
	Those proposals would establish a different role and relationship, but the most crucial difference, which would solve so many of the problems that we are chewing over this afternoon, is excluding members of the Executive from the membership of the second Chamber. Ministers should not sit in that Chamber. This is the House of the Executive and our role is to hold the Prime Minister and the leading Ministers to account in person. We do not do that well enough, but that is our responsibility.
	As soon as we removed Ministers from membership of the second Chamber, it would truly become a Chamber of parliamentary scrutiny. There would be no need for Members to get on the bandwagon and pursue a parliamentary career, so the Whips would be relieved of their powers. The White Paper wants to achieve an independent Chamber, but does not know how to do so. Independence would change all the balances between the two Chambers and resolve the gridlock almost at a stroke, because the Houses would become distinct. Clearly primacy is here, with the Executive, but the other House has an important scrutiny role.
	I think that once that has been achieved, other developments will result. There will be a more independent House, and there will be different relationships between its Members and the electorate and between its Members and the Executive. There will be no potential Government in that House; it will be a House for scrutiny and deliberation.
	I also think that the House of Lords should be far smaller. There is no need for it to contain more than 300 people. Indeed, there is no need for this House to contain more than about 400. [Interruption.] The House should be smaller. Anyone who does not recognise that should consider the matter objectively, leaving aside his or her own job or career. Both Houses of Parliament are far too big. [Interruption.]
	The Leader of the House demurs. Surely our responsibility in regard to this democracy is rather wider, and rather more important, than our responsibility for our own jobs. Perhaps it is easier for those who are approaching the end of their time in this House to see that.
	Both Houses are too big, and the idea that the second Chamber should contain more than 700 Members is a nonsense that must be laughed out of court.

Derek Wyatt: My hon. Friend said earlier that the turnout in some elections was so low that there was cynicism among the electorate. The lowest turnout was for the European elections. Could MEPs be nominated to the House of Lords? Could they sit there for one week a month, perhaps?

Mark Fisher: I often agree with my hon. Friend, but as I have made clear, I favour direct election rather than nomination. The House of Commons has experienced a system of nominations to the European Parliament, and it was not a great success.

Michael Connarty: I hoped that my hon. Friend would elaborate on a small caveat that he issued earlier. He referred to a wholly elected House of Lords, and then mentioned the possibility of a majority- elected House. I hoped that he would recognise the new context in which all democracies involved a devolved democratic process.
	It seems to me that unless there is some way of allowing the devolved parts of the United Kingdom to participate in processes down here by means of a second Chamber, there will always be a problem. Those parts of the UK will see their role purely as a competitive role in relation to us. Is there not some justification for nominations allowing representation of regional assemblies in the scrutiny to which my hon. Friend has referred?

Mark Fisher: I am not sure whether I am allowed time off for interventions, but in any case I will not follow my hon. Friend down that line, because I do not believe in indirect elections.
	Another advantage of a second Chamber that is not based on patronage is the fact that it would have confidence in itself. The danger currently posed by the White Paper is that, to create an artificial primacy for the House of Commons, it deliberately constrains arrangements in the second Chamber by providing for fewer resources and no payment, and making a number of matters convoluted. To establish that primacy, it provides for a feeble second Chamber that would jump at its own shadow. That is not in the interests of any of us.
	The Leader of the House is getting so much right. If we are to consider modernisation here together with modernisation of the other House, he should surely be responsible for the overall policy. He could then proceed much more confidently, and be assured of the confidence of the whole House.
	Each of us is here only because of democracy. I believe that today we should put our trust in democracy, and ensure that the second Chamber is democratically elected—not in competition with us, and not without the involvement of the Executive—so that we can truly strengthen the scrutiny of Parliament by both Houses and ensure that they have both distinct and complementary roles.

John Maples: Along with every other speaker, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made a powerful case for a substantially or wholly elected second Chamber; but I think that he and others have overlooked some important second and third-order aspects of their proposals that would result in a fundamental change in our constitution. This is why it has taken us 90 years to get around to the third stage of House of Lords reform. Everyone knows that it is ridiculous for us to have a House of Lords with no democratic legitimacy, but it has suited us all quite well: the lack of democratic legitimacy has enabled the Lords to survive with very limited powers. I believe that once it is given democratic legitimacy, it will acquire much more power by one means or another.
	The second Chamber must be either elected or nominated. There cannot be two classes of Member. There cannot be some who have lots of democratic legitimacy because they have been chosen by the electorate and some who have none—who are there because they have been nominated as Bishop of Winchester, or because they have been nominated by the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It must be one or the other.
	It is in that regard that I consider the White Paper to be fundamentally misconceived. It seems that the Government want democracy, but do not want it quite yet. They want a bit of democracy, but not the whole lot. They want a rainbow House consisting of elected Members, party nominees, ex officio Members, a couple of bishops and some independent people appointed by a commission about which I shall have more to say.
	The Government claim that they want the House of Lords to be representative of society as a whole. I do not know about anyone else here, but I do not want it to be representative of society as a whole; I want there to be some wisdom in it. The current Prime Minister appointed about a third of its Members, so if it is lacking in wisdom that is at least partly due to him. What we need, surely, are people who can credibly say to the Government, "You have got it wrong; think again." That involves two essential ingredients—independence and expertise.
	If the Chamber is elected, it will be dominated by political parties. It is not possible to be elected to any organisation in this country without being a candidate representing a political party. There is no worse system for imposing party discipline on candidates than proportional representation in which people are on a party list. Proportional representation is, of course, the only system of election to a second Chamber that would produce a Chamber that might defy the Government, but I think that we are in serious danger of simply replicating the House of Commons in one way or another.

Andrew Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Maples: I must make some progress. I have only 10 minutes, and I want to make a few more points.
	The basis on which the election will be different will, in fact, provide for only minor differences. I think that we will find that the second Chamber is full of party politicians—perhaps people who are better than those here, and perhaps people who have failed to get here, but who are party politicians none the less, with all the party patronage and all the involvement of the Whips that accompany membership of this place.
	When politicians are elected, they are not satisfied with the facilities that they have elsewhere. They want offices, secretaries and researchers. Those who do not believe that should bear it in mind that when I entered the House— I have been here for only a short time; the Leader of the House has been here for much longer—the allowance was just enough to pay for one secretary, whereas I can now employ three or four members of staff, have three computers, and have £1,000 a month left over to spend on other things.
	I want more office space. Everyone does, because of all the staff they have. These people will want the same—and, dare I say, they will also want salaries. They will end up duplicating our role, to a large extent. They will start holding surgeries, writing articles in their local papers and writing to their constituents. They will start doing the same things that we do. There are already 659 of us doing that, and I do not think that we need any more. Indeed, I agree with the Members who have said that fewer could do it here.
	Those people will not just want offices, researchers and secretaries; they will want more power. An elected second Chamber will have as good a democratic mandate as this place, and will not be satisfied with a revising role and the right to a 12-month delay. It may not happen immediately, but there will come a time when the second Chamber will challenge the role and primacy of the House of Commons.
	Let us suppose that the Chamber was elected on a different basis and at a different time. Let us suppose that 80 per cent. of its Members opposed a Government Bill, and that the Government were in the dog days of a Parliament, lagging way behind in the opinion polls and probably heading for defeat in the next general election. The second Chamber would be able to argue that it had greater democratic legitimacy than this place—that it had a democratic right, and that it was representing the people of this country better than the legitimate Government. That represents a fundamental change in our constitution, which could result in a Government with a significant majority in this place having their legislation blocked.
	Some Members may say that that would be a good thing; but if we are to move down that road, let us recognise that it would not merely represent a minor change in the constitution: it would be a move towards an American-style constitution, in which the Government would have to negotiate their programme with the legislature. If that is to be done, let us do it openly. I am a great fan of the American system, largely because it stops Governments doing very much—and since Governments usually mess things up, that is probably a good idea. Let us not pretend that making the House of Lords wholly elected would be merely tinkering with it. It would be a very big change.
	Those people who have made the case for a substantially or wholly elected House of Lords have an attractive case on the ground of democracy, but nobody has dealt properly with the second and third-order issues that, to my mind, mean that the case for an elected second Chamber has not been made.

Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman said that an elected second Chamber would inevitably demand more powers. Surely that could not occur unless this House agreed.

John Maples: Yes, but the case for those powers might be overwhelming. We could have a hung Parliament or significant popular demand for it could be expressed. The history of this House has been the acquisition of more and more powers over the past several hundred years, first from the Crown and then from the House of Lords. We cannot set the situation in aspic, and any new set-up will be organic and take on a life and agenda of its own. To suggest anything else is fanciful.
	If we are to have an elected House of Lords—a second Chamber, or whatever we will call it—I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that it should be a proper legislature. In other words, it should have no Ministers, because then it has some chance of being really different from the House of Commons. People would not try to pursue careers as Ministers by pleasing the Whips and the party hierarchy, but could concentrate on examining what the Government were doing.
	People should not be elected for 15 years and not allowed to run again. That is the worst kind of democratic representation, because people would not be responsible to those who elected them. The proposed appointments commission is a real horror. I cannot see how it would advance democracy to take away the rights of hereditary peers and hand them to a commission consisting of the chairman of a building society, a couple of goods and greats from the charity world and a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers. Why should they have the right to decide who votes in the second Chamber, any more than the accident of birth of the 800-odd people who happen to be hereditary peers—two of whom now sit in this Chamber—should be used to decide who has those votes?
	The nominations should not be made by some quango but by the Prime Minister, who is accountable to Parliament. He has to make the nominations openly, and conventions give leaders of other parties the right to appoint working peers. Conventions also give certain people—such as former Cabinet Ministers—the right to go the House of Lords if they want to and those conventions should be extended to, for example, the president of the Trades Union Congress, the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry and presidents of the royal colleges. Such people would add independence and expertise.
	If we are to have ex-officio members of the House of Lords, why should that include only a few bishops and judges? There is a good argument for judges having nothing to do with the legislature, and there is no argument for just having bishops of the Church of England. I would be happy to see the ex-officio principle extended so that those members of the House who were nominated could be produced other than by nomination by the Prime Minister. However, it is farcical to suggest that we should create a quango to which we should hand over the rights of the electorate.
	While a persuasive case can be made for a wholly elected second Chamber, it does not deal with the second and third-order issues, which make the proposals a far more fundamental change to our constitution than its proponents recognise. I would prefer a nominated House without the hereditary peers—for whose presence there is no justification—with the same limited powers that it now has. The only way to provide the independence, expertise and—if I dare say it again—wisdom is to have a nominated, not elected, House.

James Plaskitt: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), my constituency neighbour, but I disagree with most of what he said. It is becoming evident—if it was not easily anticipated—that the White Paper is in some trouble. That is because it is a mix of principle and old-fashioned political fixing. The problems arise when constitutional reform is more of the latter than the former.
	The best constitutional reforms in history are those that proceeded from a core principle, such as devolution. That was achieved by this Labour Government from clear first principles, was well established and has taken root as a settled part of our constitutional arrangements. However, when constitutional arrangements are changed as part of a political fix, they tend to be unstable, fail to take root and do not work. The White Paper is a mix of the two.
	When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced the White Paper, he was on solid ground because he referred to core principles that are not negotiable—such as getting rid of hereditary peers. That is the easy part. However, the White Paper slides too quickly from certain principles into political fixes, and that is where the problems start. We need to achieve as much of the reform as possible on the basis of clear principle—why we are reforming the second Chamber and what its purpose will be. If we are clear about those principles and work from them, we will be able to achieve good and lasting reform, which will not happen if we mix up principle and political expediency.
	All constitutional reform—and certainly this reform—should attempt to tackle the lack of esteem in which Parliament is held. I refer my right hon. Friend to his excellent document, "Modernisation of the House of Commons: a reform programme for consultation", in which he says, in the final paragraph:
	"There are many factors which have contributed to the decline in turnout at the General Elections, but one of them has been the long term decline in esteem for Parliament."
	That is right, and in reforming the House of Lords we are reforming Parliament. I therefore urge that we heed the message of the 59 per cent. turnout in the general election and the point that my right hon. Friend makes about esteem, and link our reform of this House with what we wish to achieve through reform of the upper House. If we think of the reform of Parliament in its entirety, we will do better than if we try to keep the reform of the House of Lords in a separate box. That is why we are heading towards difficult territory.
	The public have a problem with Parliament. They see it as outmoded, and in large part irrelevant and weak. Some of that perception is about this Chamber, but it includes the House of Lords. The public understand and support us when we reform on principle—such as putting an end to the hereditary peers—but if we are to concentrate on the esteem of Parliament, we should consider how the public will perceive our reform of the upper Chamber. Will they understand our aims if we get rid of the hereditary peers but retain a majority of appointed members? I do not think that we will take the public with us on that. They want us to continue reform, but it must be on broadly acceptable terms. The public will simply be baffled by the complex reforms proposed in the White Paper.
	We are trying to rebalance the legislative and executive branches and addressing issues of accountability. Democracy must be the default position. We must start from the assumption that a house of a legislature should be elected unless a good case can be made for it not to be elected. The Government have two key arguments in favour of the White Paper. One is the gridlock argument and the other is the loss of independence and expertise. They are important points and worthy of consideration.
	The gridlock problem arises only if the two Houses have similar powers. It is clear that they need not do so. The White Paper gives the example of America when it mentions the problem of gridlock, but that is an unfair point because the American constitution is fundamentally different in its structures and principles. That is not a valid defence of the point about gridlock. We can resolve the issue by having a clear definition of the functions of the two Houses. They will not be duplicate functions. The second Chamber will have a scrutiny and refinement role that is quite different from that of this place. The Executive will remain enshrined in this Chamber and the money power will rest here. Even if there is conflict between the two Houses, we are not incapable of devising ways of resolving that. Mediation processes can be brought into play.
	We have not heard a lot about the second point: the argument about the loss of independence and expertise. Why is that deemed important? A number of reasons emerge from a reading of the White Paper, including the volume of legislation and the complexity of governing in the modern state. That is prayed in aid of the need for expertise if scrutiny of legislation is to be effective. But in this Chamber, we legislate and scrutinise, and yet the argument about bringing in independence and expertise is never used in respect of this House. We are deemed adequate, as elected Members, to write legislation, but somehow when it comes to scrutiny, there has to be independence and expertise brought to bear. There is some inconsistency in that.
	The problem arises because the Government are trying to fit independence and expertise into membership of a legislature. Independence and expertise are needed to support the work of parliamentarians, but they do not have to be inside the Chamber. In the context of parliamentary reform as a whole, we must ask what we do to support ourselves with independence and expertise in all the scrutiny work that this Chamber does and that an upper Chamber would do. We can provide Select Committees—of this or that Chamber alone, or joint Committees, or pre-legislative Committees, all of which are needed and envisaged in the context of Commons reform—with permanent standing committees of experts and advisers on whom they can draw. There is a role for that, but we start to get into problems when we argue that that expertise has to be contained within a Chamber, rather than working in support of that Chamber. There is an answer to that impediment as well. The points about gridlock and expertise are fair, but if we think coherently and stick to the democratic principle, they can be overcome.
	I am concerned about the inherent instability of the White Paper's proposals, which will not bring an end to the argument about what the upper Chamber should be like. There is nothing inherently logical about having 20 per cent. of the Chamber elected, or 33 per cent., 50 per cent. or 66 per cent. If it is not a simple, clear, logical and coherent solution, it will be the subject of permanent argument. If we get stuck on that, we will get distracted from other things, and we will not do anything to help rebuild esteem for Parliament, which is what we should be in the business of doing.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) made a thoughtful speech, but I am bound to say that I found the speech of his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), a very much more convincing one. My hon. Friend outlined the real dilemma that faces the House today: because of the Government's inept and clumsy handling of constitutional matters, we are—rather like the Irishman—not where we want to be, but we are here and we have to face facts. The facts are as was lucidly annunciated by my hon. Friend.
	If we are to reform Parliament, we have a choice. We either seek to improve what we have or we seek to create something entirely different. The logic of the former position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, was entirely right; indeed, it was impeccable. He believed that we needed to re-write—or, indeed, to write—our constitution. He believed that we should have a second Chamber that had real power and was directly and wholly elected. He believed that the relationship between the two Houses should be broadly similar to the relationship between the two Houses of Congress in the United States. That is an impeccably logical position and a perfectly honourable and honest one.
	It happens to be one with which I do not agree. I am an evolutionist. I believe that we should concentrate on improving what we have and not create something different. I do not want a wholly written constitution. I recognise that if we move towards a wholly elected second Chamber, all the consequences to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred, and many others besides, are inescapable. At a stroke, we would move towards the disestablishment of the Church of England and towards the establishment of a supreme court, both of which may be desired by many Members. I am not seeking to argue that they are not logical things to want, but the House must face up to the consequences of its own actions and proposals.
	It is fatuous to suppose—my hon. Friend was again entirely right on this—that we would be able to create a wholly elected second Chamber that was permanently and perpetually subordinate to this House. If we had people of real calibre seeking election to that place, and if they had a mandate, they would, over time, inevitably come to challenge us. If they were elected on the same day, we would merely have a replication—two elected Chambers, one subordinate to the other. If they were elected at a different time, we could have an unpopular Government of the day, wanting to get what they considered essential parts of their mandate through, while, at the other end of the Corridor, we had people with mandates stretching many years ahead who believed that they could overturn and challenge that. The prescription for gridlock, and worse, is there and we have to face up to that fact.
	I believe that it would be far better to go down the road referred to by my hon. Friend. I would prefer a wholly nominated House. I do not believe that one can dismiss as pleasantly and lightly as did the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington the question of expertise. I do not believe that it is sufficient to have experts who are merely advisers to Select Committees and individual Members. I believe that it is right and proper to have people of real intellectual quality and ability in the other place. The country as a whole does not regard us as being less than admirable because of the activities at the other end of the Corridor; it does so because of the activities at this end of the Corridor.
	I also believe that the argument about legitimacy is spurious. If we look around the world, we see that many second Chambers are not directly elected. Nobody questions that France is a democracy, but it has an indirectly elected second Chamber. The same is true of Germany. In Canada—where the second Chamber has the power of total veto—there is a wholly appointed second Chamber, with senators serving for 15 years. In my view, we would be far better building upon what we have, and having a second Chamber that is wholly nominated.
	Such a Chamber would not be illegitimate. When one goes around the world, nobody suggests that this country is not regarded as a democracy. Indeed, we are held up in many places as being the fount of democracy. We hear—it is frequently misquoted—that this is the mother of Parliaments. It is not; the Bright quotation is that England is the mother of Parliaments. Other countries look upon us as a great democracy, and they do not believe that that position is invalidated for half a second because we have a second Chamber that is not directly elected.

Fiona Mactaggart: Yes, they do.

Patrick Cormack: I am sorry; I do not think that that is the case. As I have said, there are many second Chambers around the world that are not directly elected.
	I agreed completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on one point: we must remind the Government of their oft-repeated promise that a Joint Committee of both Houses would be established once the first stage of reform had been completed. That Joint Committee would look at all the implications and possible varieties and permutations of change. It is incumbent on the Government to honour that promise, which seems to have been forgotten and abandoned.
	We should have a Joint Committee of both Houses, but there is no hurry about the matter. The second Chamber exists and functions effectively. The Joint Committee should look carefully at the various options. We should decide whether to have a written constitution in this country, which would entail a reorganisation and reordering of the respective powers of the two Houses. If that is the decision, we should move towards having a wholly elected second Chamber. If we decide that what we have is too good to throw away totally, we should safeguard and improve it. The only sensible way to do that is to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
	Hon. Members talk about elections as though the public love them, but a certain election fatigue has set in. People expect Parliament to scrutinise, supervise and hold the Government to account. They vote for us to do that, but far fewer people voted last June than in previous general elections. The percentage polls for the number of people voting for other assemblies such as local government or the European Parliament invite several questions. Do we really think that people would vote for the sort of second Chamber envisaged in the White Paper? That directly elected Chamber would have no more powers than the Government were willing to allow.
	Would that directly elected second Chamber attract the necessary calibre of candidate or the enthusiasm of the population? It would not. Would a derisory turnout of 25 per cent. confer great legitimacy on that body? Would not having directly elected people in the second Chamber give more power to the political parties than even the patronage system gives? After all, everyone in the second Chamber would owe their position to one party or another.
	I urge the House to approach this matter with great caution. We are talking about the constitution of our country, and we must get it right. The Government have not been especially helpful in setting us on the right road, but we can still redeem the position. However, we will not do so by going for the gimmick, or by rushing something through before the next general election.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who spoke earlier. Their Thermopylae speeches, if I might call them that, were as fine a defence of the indefensible as it is possible to imagine.
	Before I continue, I shall do as I did in 1999. I shall come out straight away and say that I am an unreconstructed, unrepentant and practising unicameralist. I do not believe that there is a need in modern democracies such as ours for a second Chamber. However, I am also a realist, and I understand as well as anyone that unicameralism, like heavenly bliss, is not for this world; at least, it is certainly not for this Parliament, so other matters need to be addressed.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has at least one supporter in the Chamber—me. Does he agree that the speeches made today make our case even stronger than it was before?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Yes, I do. However, before I deal with that I wish to make a brief plea for the unicameralist position, if only to ensure that the argument does not go by default. It has always seemed to me that having a single Chamber would avoid in the most dramatic way the false dichotomy involved in deciding whether a second Chamber should have too much legitimacy by being all elected, or whether it should have no legitimacy because it would be the product of nepotism, croneyism, patronage, or whatever one wishes to call it.
	Secondly, in the limited time that I have been in the House it has always seemed to me that the existence of a second Chamber is often used as an alibi for this House's inadequacies. For example, we had some fine debates in this House on jury trial. There was considerable resistance among Labour Members to the proposal to remove the right to trial by jury. In the end, 80 Labour Members either abstained or voted against the measure.
	The overall effect of that vote may have been slight in this House, but the effect on the House of Lords was more considerable. A considerable number of Labour Members told me how deeply worried and distressed they were about the legislation. Weeping through the Lobbies is a well known characteristic of new Labour Members, who said that they would support the Government because they knew that the House of Lords would chuck out the proposal in the end.
	We should consider what would have happened if the House of Lords did not exist. Those Labour Members would have gone ahead and voted against the Government, and there is a good chance that the Government would have been defeated. Who knows what would have come from that sudden outbreak of testosterone among Labour Members? Who knows what would have been the long-term effect of the House taking control of the Executive for the first time?
	I turn now to the White Paper. The real iniquity in its proposals is that 80 per cent. of the membership of the projected second Chamber would be chosen by a system of patronage. Patronage in any guise is the curse of the British political system. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a compelling point when he said that patronage had its roots in the system that we have. We select our Executive, by a system of patronage, from the legislature. The result is an immediate and obvious conflict of interest, which is well overdue for review. The most crude manifestation of that conflict was evident in the disgraceful attempts to manipulate the Select Committee system.
	Patronage in this House has always had a corrosive effect, on Government and on individual Members of Parliament. However, I have considerable sympathy for my fellow hon. Members. A few of us came here late in life, having had the enormous fortune—in my case, the good luck—to pursue reasonable careers beforehand. We happy band of brothers do not give a fig about preferment of any sort, and would not accept it if it were offered. In my case, that is very lucky.
	However, we are comparatively few in number. I understand very well that other hon. Members are professional politicians, and much younger than I am. Their entire careers rely on the fact that they are bound to that form of patronage, which colours and configures their behaviour as Back Benchers. There is no dishonour in that, but patronage represents the only chance that such hon. Members will have to serve.
	The same applies to the House of Lords. Many hon. Members will have noticed, as I have, what happens when senior Members of this House discover that they are not going to be the junior Minister in charge of paper clips, or that they do not want to hold such a post again. In their case, the power of patronage is exerted in respect of elevation to the House of Lords. Anyone who has not seen that happen with senior Members of this House over the past five years must be very myopic indeed. We must set our collective face against the principle of patronage.
	Finally, I want to explode the idea that a wholly elected second Chamber would in some way conflict with the primacy of this Chamber. That proposition has been touched on by several Labour Members. It is a specious argument. This House sets the parameters and the circumscriptions for that House. We may not get people of the highest possible calibre standing for election if they know that the House of Lords has very circumscribed powers. So be it. My bet is that we will, but that does not matter much. The principle is the main thing.
	Of course people may want an office, a telephone and a secretary. I appreciate that those things matter to the patrician side of the Conservative party. They may even write to the local newspapers about it, and that will not conflict with me at all. In any event, we will have a proper and duly elected assembly.
	The worst thing is to have part and part. What happens if part of the second Chamber is elected and part of it is not? We all get a rush of blood to the head when we suddenly find that we represent real people; we get the urge to take on the Government, or anybody else, and to make trouble, if necessary, on behalf of our constituents. What happens if part of the House of Lords suffers from that malaise and affliction and the other part does not? What happens if there is an alien body in the soft belly of the House of Lords that is permanently for insurrection and usurping the House of Commons? That only needs to be said for us to realise the absurdity of the position. I agree that one option or the other must be chosen, and it can only be one. The overwhelming view and wish of the people is that we should have a wholly elected second Chamber.
	The Government have a choice. They can change the Bill markedly and substantially. I have never said this before, and I hope that I will be taken seriously, but it is my perception that if they do not they will lose it, for the first time ever, notwithstanding their majority. Alternatively, they can push it through as it is or they can sulk and say that even if we do not like it they will not bring it back. That was touched on by the Lord Chancellor yesterday or the day before.
	I hope that the Government do not take that option and that they listen to this debate. Most of the contributions have been outstanding. I hope that we will ultimately have a Bill that will give us an elected second Chamber of which we can be proud.

Archie Norman: I agree with many of the points made on both sides of the House, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I am not in complete agreement with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). However, he made the powerful point that whatever we do in reforming the House of Lords will represent a substantial constitutional shift. I believe that that is long overdue and should be embraced. That is the historic opportunity with which we are presented.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members will believe that the constitutional shift should be minimised. The change in the composition of the House of Lords is inextricably bound up with what it does, and we should face that as part of the process. That is where the White Paper falls short.
	Along with other right hon. and hon. Members, I recently listened to the Leader of the House give a very erudite and wholly convincing exposition to the Hansard Society on the need for change in the conduct and proceedings of the House of Commons to deal with the fact that we are facing a decline in democratic respect for, and legitimacy of, the public process. His trenchant remarks, with which I wholly agree, seem not to have been applied in the same way to the White Paper on the process of reform. Perhaps his thoughts have moved on since the White Paper's publication. If he could provide the same vision of and enlightened approach to the reform of the House of Lords that he provided for modernisation, we would all be much better off.
	The test that should be applied to reform of the House of Lords is whether it provides for the 21st century an increase in respect for Parliament, the public processes and democratic representation, whether it provides the required balance between the power of the Executive and that of the state, whether it provides us with greater ability to attract men and women of wisdom, ability and talent into the public process and whether it can be achieved with a reasonable degree of consensus, which transparently does not exist at the moment. The White Paper fails on all counts.
	I do not want to dwell on points that have already been made, but when it comes to respect for Parliament, this peculiar concoction of various manners of appointment to the House of Lords will be greeted with perplexity and derision by the public. I would find the White Paper very hard to explain to my constituents—it needs a White Paper to do that. It is too complex, but the worst thing about it, and the essence of the problem, is not that it proposes a primarily nominated House, for which a respectable case can be made, but that the bulk of it entrenches the power of patronage of the political parties. There is no respect or support for that in the country at large.
	We should be asking not whether patronage of political parties should be predominant in this process but whether it has any place at all in appointments to the House of Lords. I am in favour of a largely elected House of Lords, but that is only one way to go. The central point is that entrenching the power of the political party in this demeaning process of patronage, which the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) referred to, should be abolished once and for all. It has been abused in the past by political parties on both sides and it will be abused again in the future.
	More seriously, my concern is about the failure to address in any substantive way the roles of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. We are on the slippery slope, and the White Paper gives no sense of a permanent stopping place; it is simply the start of the process. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would rather face the issue now and have a substantive debate to see whether we can arrive at a solution that will endure at least for some years to come.
	It is beyond dispute that this House has primacy. However, primacy is not as absolute as some Members have sought to pretend. For decades, the House of Lords has acted as a restraining and redirecting influence, and if we have a more capable House of Lords, so should it do in the future.
	We have a system of government that is far more centralised than those of many of the countries that have been mentioned. Because of that, there needs to be an appropriate counter-balance. It is, I believe, a shared view that our system of government tends to produce too much regulation which is complex and often conflicted. There is a failure to confront the archaeology of regulation, by which I mean regulation that was produced many decades ago upon which are layered other forms of regulation. We never pull it up by the roots, review it and establish a comprehensive and simple process that meets today's needs.
	Bearing in mind the media in this country, we are far more subject to the influences of short-term political pressures that can produce legislation that does not stand the test of time. The role of the House of Lords should be to address each of those issues. That has to do with far more than scrutiny; it is to do with limiting and constraining the supremacy not just of this House but of the Executive as a whole. Instead of reinforcing that process and addressing it, the White Paper diminishes the powers of the Lords. It removes the veto on secondary legislation, and although I understand the issues surrounding that, the House of Lords has a role to play in secondary legislation. The White Paper fails to provide a mechanism for amending ministerial regulation, of which there is more and more. It fails to address the failure of both Houses to scrutinise adequately the way we put European directives into practice. It does nothing to enable the Lords to instigate reviews of outdated legislation and to put forward proposals for simplification of the legislative process, and it fails to provide any enhanced role in protecting individual liberties and the vexed question of future changes to the constitution.
	All those are, fundamentally, missed opportunities. The reality is that the proposed House of Lords will lack respect and influence. If one has a Lords that is not doing anything substantive and that lacks respect and influence, one will not attract people of wisdom or talent to participate in it—even in the core process of scrutiny.
	The failure to attract talent is a broader issue in public life today. We are seeing a narrowing of the political class. As the hon. and learned Member for Medway said, fewer and fewer of us come to this House with a prior career. There are still some of us, but we are something of a dying breed.
	In amending the role of the House of Lords, we should enhance that process. Some hon. Members see that as an argument for nomination. I do not. The truth is that what will attract people to serve in the House of Lords meaningfully is the belief that they will have a meaningful role there. What puts people off coming into public life after a career? It is the futility of participating in a process in which their talents are not used or valued, the domination of the party machinery, the imposition on their family and lifestyle and the fact that they are often under-resourced and incapable of doing a good job.
	Many former business colleagues of mine, as well as peers and people from other walks of life—men and women of achievement—will willingly stand for election to the House of Lords, particularly if there is a simplified election process in which they will not have a narrow constituency as we do, if they believe that they will have a substantial role to play and a fixed term of office and if they are not subject to quite the extent of democratic scrutiny that we are. The Wakeham proposal went some way towards meeting those criteria, but I am afraid that the White Paper does not.
	The White Paper is short on vision and disappointing in its scope. If implemented in this form—I am sure that it will not be because there is clearly no consensus for it—it will represent a further step in the decline in public life and respect for it. The time has come, therefore, to have a rethink. That should not simply be a question of negotiating on the finer points of the arithmetic of the elected membership; it should be about the whole nature of the Lords, the balance between the two Houses and how we make that Chamber important and meaningful.

Harold Best: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I had a career before I arrived in the House. I worked as an electrician. I have not come across another electrician in the House. Something that could be said for elected democracy, among other things, is that many different types of people are elected to office.
	It is important to bear another factor in mind when we discuss the possible role of the second Chamber and how it might be made up. I was first elected to office a long time ago as the shop steward on a large construction site. The first lesson that I learned was that being elected to office did not mean being elected to power. Being an office holder was one thing; exercising power was another matter altogether. We must realise that we are talking about the exercise of power—where it might be exercised and by whom. It is almost like swearing in church to mention power on these occasions, but the debate is about that very subject.
	I have never been sure whether I favour a second Chamber. There are powerful arguments for the abolition of that Chamber and for strengthening it in the way that many hon. Members have described. I tend to favour maintaining the second Chamber, but I want it to be democratised. The difficulty is with that problem area. How do we democratise the exercise of power? How do we ensure that the powers that this House wants to retain can be shared in any way with another House? What role will that other House play in any amelioration of the exercise of power if it is done in an arbitrary and unfair fashion? Those are the important issues and we should face up to them.
	I regret that the White Paper proposes that the second Chamber should still be dominated by the unelected—those whom some call the good and the worthy. There are the virtuous people there too: the good bishops of the Church of England and the judiciary represented by the Law Lords. There are also people who are said to be independent or politically neutral. The elected people proposed in the White Paper would form a minority of the membership of the second Chamber. In short, the proposal would amount to very little, if any, real change to the social, economic and political interests that exist in the other House. In reality, we are talking about continuity in the exercise of power.
	I find it difficult to accept the notion that there are independent people—independent of thought and judgment. That isolation of intellectual activity I have always found interesting as an idea but it should not be followed through in practice, unless, of course, these people are like God and have an abundance of knowledge, if not total knowledge, and a judgment system to match. Perhaps, these independents come from some other place, such as Mars. The idea that they are somehow more virtuous is interesting. It has not been my experience that people who are "independent" are any more virtuous when it comes to the exercise of power than people who obviously and manifestly show the colours on which they seek election.
	The political independence and influence of the dominant socio-economic forces in our society will continue, whether here or in the other place. I have always found the idea of political neutrality interesting—from my time as a shop steward right through to the level of activity in which I am now engaged. Neutrality says more about the neutering of political activity than a neutral position, and, again, that is relevant to the exercise of power. How are we to manage that power and have a reviewing body? The White Paper has failed miserably in its proposals for meeting the needs of a second Chamber, which on balance is a system that I would favour.
	In the 1980s, I had the pleasure of serving as a member of the police authority of West Yorkshire. Another member of that authority was a first-class Tory councillor called Kenneth Davison. Sadly, he died about 10 years ago. He was an amazing character and working with him was an enlightening process for me. He was diametrically opposed to me, politically, in many ways. However, we shared a great deal. Since I came to this place in 1997, I have discovered to my pleasant surprise that Opposition Members hold views about democracy and how it might be exercised with which I can concur. I find the liberal, right-wing view very attractive sometimes. That exercise of liberal democracy has something to be said for it.
	Ken Davison told me that no magistrates should be allowed to serve on the police authority. I asked why and he said, "Because they are unrepresentative, unelected and unaccountable, and they have no place in a democratic society." It seems to me that if Ken was around now to make observations about the House of Lords, he would be able to make a similar comment, as he would if the White Paper's proposals were to be enacted. If those proposals were enacted, we would have in the upper House a majority of people who were unaccountable, unelected and unrepresentative of the people that they claimed to act on behalf of.
	I am of the opinion, therefore, that only one course of action would be acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members should understand that we are talking about democracy and the exercise of power. If we had an elected Chamber just down the hallway from here and an elected Chamber here, they would both be elected democratically. We are really talking not so much about the democracy, but about who will exercise the power—where the final decision will be taken and who will take the decisions behind the scenes. We all know that that goes on.
	Our democratic process needs to be enriched. That can be done by abandoning the White Paper proposals and ensuring 100 per cent. elected representation in the other place, or getting as close to that 100 per cent. as possible and acknowledging that, as has been said, other aspects of democratically elected government might reasonably find a place in that Chamber. I am thinking of representation from regional government, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and so on. I favour such an extension of democracy, influencing the distribution and exercise of power.
	I look forward to the Government's adoption of what seems to be the dominant view in the House at the moment and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future—that the present proposals are thoroughly inadequate and do not address the needs of the people of the United Kingdom.

John Thurso: Before being elected to the House this year, I had a career in the hotel industry, where our greatest desire was to achieve the highest possible degree of customer satisfaction. In our training programmes, we developed what became known as Thurso's law of satisfaction, which is, simply stated, that satisfaction is the difference between delivery and expectation. When I read the White Paper, I thought that it was extremely unsatisfactory, in part because the expectation had been so high and in part because the delivery, when it came, was so timid.
	When the Leader of the House opened the debate this afternoon, however, he quite properly called on us all to look for the areas of consensus, and he enunciated two core principles and asked hon. Members to support them. I am happy to assure him that, regarding those two core principles, I shall support whatever legislation is introduced, not because I believe that the legislation will be satisfactory, but simply because some legislation is much more satisfactory than none, and because I believe that reform of the other place is an iterative process and that whatever steps are taken now can be built on in future.
	The opportunity that we have in this process in the House and in the other place is to address the problem that several hon. Members have spoken about: the democratic deficit that is growing between the political process in the Westminster village and the way in which the electorate perceive it. This is an opportunity to start to build back the public trust in the system.
	To ensure that there is no doubt, let me make clear where I stand. I have absolutely no doubt that the second Chamber will be wholly elected one day, and I believe that that is absolutely right. I do doubt whether that will occur in this century or the next. I only hope that I live to see considerable progress towards that end.
	Before the reform of 1999 there was a very real consensus for reform and on what that reform should achieve. First, there was a consensus in favour of abolition of the hereditaries. There is no defence for the hereditary principle in Parliament. It works fine for breeding livestock but it does not work very well for delivering legislators.
	Secondly, there is a broad consensus in favour of a bicameral system. There is a convincing and powerful intellectual argument, made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), in favour of a unicameral system, but I believe in a bicameral system and I believe that there is a broad consensus for such a system.
	Thirdly, there was a consensus that whatever we did should produce a second Chamber that was a fit and effective Chamber for a 21st century Parliament.
	The consensus seems to be in danger of breaking apart, because of the weakness of the White Paper, which results from the weakness of the Wakeham commission report. That report was a great lost opportunity; rather than clearing the fog of detail, it added to it. It is a great shame that we went down the royal commission route and did not opt for a Joint Commission of both Houses at that time.
	I should like to pull back from the detail to what I believe to be the single most important thing that reform of the other place should achieve, and it involves a very simple test—the test of legitimacy. Too often in another place, and now in this place, I have listened to Members plead the simple fact that the other place is illegitimate as a sole argument for not voting against something of which the Government are in favour. That cannot be the right way to run any parliamentary system. Therefore, whatever we decide to do—whether the second Chamber is wholly appointed, wholly elected or a mixture of the two—we must be able to say that what we have achieved is legitimate. We should never again be able to criticise the legitimacy of the other place here, in the media or in the country at large. If we can pass that test, we shall have done a great deal.
	I shall break from the general consensus that appears to have emerged during this debate on one issue—what is described as the supremacy or the primacy of this House. I do not believe that this House needs to inflict primacy or superiority over the other place. The two Houses should act as partners. This House naturally will be the senior partner; it represents constituencies, delivers the Government and bears the result of general elections.
	Because of that and because of the differences in the way the two Houses will work and the different functions that they will be required to carry out, this House will always remain the senior partner, but it should not be the dominant partner and it should not have supremacy. The other place should not be like a Victorian wife and be asked to honour and obey; the partnership should be much more equal. The conventions of the two Houses and the way in which they work will allow that to happen; legislation is not needed, and I shall briefly touch on some of the details in that regard.
	The other place does have certain strengths. Anyone who has sat through debates in the other place will recognise that the quality of debate is strong there and that, very often, the decisions that it takes—in particular, on less controversial matters—are wise and add to the legislation passed by this House, which is so often rushed and perhaps not digested so well as it could have been. Much of the reason for that lies in the manner, customs and way in which the other place works and is composed.
	First, the Whips have no power in the other place. They ask Members very nicely whether they would mind coming in to vote and whether they would be kind enough to vote in the way that the party proposes. If the Members say no, the Whips say, "That's absolutely fine." I have heard that things may run differently in some parties in this House, although I have not yet experienced that in my own. The reason why the Whips have no power in the Lords is that membership does not end there, except in rather obvious, strange circumstances. Basically, at the moment, its Members are there for life, so they can ignore the Whips if they choose do so. That helps to provide some of the essential flavour of the House of Lords.
	The second reason is the age of those in the House of Lords. It is important that its membership is of a certain, more mature age than is perhaps found in this House. That helps to create a more deliberative and less combative style there. In any solution—my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has already reflected my views on that—Members should serve for one fixed term as that would remove the problem of the Whips that I have mentioned. Although I am not hung up on any particular limit, that term should be reasonably long. I suggest a term of 12 years, because that figure is divisible by three and one could have one-third rolling elections.
	Marrying elections to the other place with elections to the European Parliament would be a great mistake. The elections should be aligned with those to the national and regional assemblies, because they would then be more likely to attract a much stronger turnout.
	Ultimately, I would like the entire membership of the second Chamber to be elected. Much has been said about the independence of the Cross Benchers and how wonderful it is to have the great and the good in the other place. My experience suggests that the Cross Benchers are somewhat overrated. In my time in the other place, the hereditary Cross Benchers were largely closet Tories and the great and the good were so great and good that they did not always bother to turn up. It is important to realise what actually happens. Many Members on the Cross Benches are excellent, but overall, they are not quite as great as everyone makes out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Jane Griffiths: I do not plan to speak for long in what has so far been an excellent debate. I also do not plan to speak more than is necessary about how pusillanimous and wrong the proposals in the White Paper are. Instead, I intend to return to first principles and to show how this debate, which must be the start of a considerable process and is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, might lead us to the conclusion that we should have a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber.
	I remind hon. Members that last June saw the lowest turnout at a general election since 1918. Last year saw the lowest turnout in a by-election since the second world war and the last European election showed a record low turnout as well. The Government's response is to suggest that there should be fewer elections—that the people are not be trusted. Instead, according to the proposals in the White Paper, our second Chamber should somehow be made up of placepeople.
	Several hon. Members and people in debates elsewhere have expressed the view that the people who run the country—legislators and the Executive—should look around more. They should not be inward looking but should listen to what the people are saying. The analogy used—I think first by President John F. Kennedy—was that we should look out of the windows of the aeroplane. This analogy was also famously used by Vaclav Havel in his new year's day broadcast to the people of the Czech Republic—Czechoslovakia as it was then—on 1 January 1990, an important day for democracy to which I shall refer again.
	To set that point in context, people in the Czech Republic had been used to broadcasts telling them how happy everyone was and how the five-year plan for tractor production had been exceeded. Those were the old certainties. However, Vaclav Havel's broadcast was the first new year's day broadcast since the velvet revolution and his election on 28 December 1989. I believe that the following excerpt is relevant to our debates today.
	Vaclav Havel was talking about how the totalitarian system had been
	"a sin we committed against ourselves".
	He went on:
	"If we accept it as such, we will understand that it is up to us all, and to us only, to do something about it. We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue but also because it could blunt the duty that each of us faces today, namely the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably and quickly. Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best Parliament, cannot achieve much on its own. And it would also be wrong to expect a remedy from them only. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all."
	The importance of that quotes lies in the last sentence. We cannot underestimate the importance of participation and responsibility to freedom and democracy.
	Our response to the perceived lack of faith in our democracy, as shown by the fall in turnout at elections to date, has not, up to now, been fewer elections. The Government have a proud record of introducing devolution for Scotland and Wales. In those countries, the answer has been to trust the people more and to give them a greater say in the running of their affairs.
	Britain also has a proud record as a country with one of the oldest Parliaments and oldest franchises. That does not mean that we know everything or that we cannot learn from other countries. Sometimes we can learn from countries that are new to democracy. Just over a year ago, I had the privilege of visiting South Africa as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association group. It was a privilege to talk with people who had campaigned and fought so long for something about which we have become so blasé. Who can forget those pictures of the first democratic elections in South Africa—people queuing for hours to vote? That is unthinkable in this country at present.
	I cannot forget holding conversations with people from the African National Congress who were interested in our second Chamber. They asked, "How do you manage it? How does it work when people are appointed? Where do you find them from? What about corruption?" They were rightly concerned about those matters. I was humbled, though, talking to those people who had seen members of their family beaten or killed before their eyes and who were now sitting in Parliament opposite people who had been responsible for those beatings and killings. They did so because they knew that it was best for their democracy and their country to sit down with people with opposing views.
	I am a democrat. I believe that our freedom and democracy are the responsibility of us all and that participation is the most important part of that responsibility. We are told, and a number of hon. Members said this today, that if the second Chamber is wholly or substantially elected that will challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. I may not be a constitutional expert, but I know that many countries have a second Chamber without having such a conflict. I know of times when there has been conflict between the different Chambers here. I believe that we can learn from examples from around the world.
	I cannot believe that it is beyond our abilities to establish a system with a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber in which there is no in-built conflict between the two. I do not want to propose options and get into the detail of the White Paper, because that would bog down the debate; but if the Government are concerned about a crisis in legitimacy between two elected Chambers, it would be reasonable to have a single- Chamber Parliament. I am not a unicameralist, but that would at least be the logically coherent thing to do. We do not prevent a conflict between two Chambers by having one of them stuffed full of people who are placed there under patronage.
	In conclusion, I return to Vaclav Havel, because I believe that we can learn from him. He finished his broadcast by saying:
	"I want to be a President who will speak less and work more . . . To be a President who will not only look out of the windows of his airplane but who, first and foremost, will always be amongst his fellow citizens and listen to them well . . . The most distinguished of my predecessors opened his first speech with a quotation from the great Czech educator Comenius. Allow me to round off my first speech with my own paraphrase of the same statement:
	'People, your government has returned to you!'"
	Let us learn from the new democracies in South Africa and eastern Europe. Let us have an elected second Chamber as part of our Parliament. Let us return our Government to the people.

Andrew Tyrie: I have believed for a long time that democracy is the right way forward for the second Chamber. I will not rehearse all the arguments in favour of that now. Nor will I go into the manifest shortcomings of the White Paper, because others have already done so. I want to make only one point.
	Contrary to what many people thought, to what the Prime Minister suggested yesterday in the House when he said that there were as many views on Lords reform as there were MPs, and to what the Leader of the House said today when he implied that lack of agreement might be a basis for preventing any change at all, consensus is emerging in the House on the most contentious issues. Many hon. Members have alluded to that fact, including the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with whom I had the pleasure in the last Parliament of jointly sponsoring an early-day motion on this issue that secured widespread support throughout the House.
	What are the most contentious issues? First, do we really want a second Chamber? Secondly, what powers should it have? Thirdly, what composition is required to enable it to exercise those powers effectively? On the first issue, there used to be complete disagreement throughout the House. There were many unicameralists, but now even the unicameralists are saying that they are prepared to be realists. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is no longer in his place, has made a welcome conversion to that position, and as far as I know, he was the last remaining significant unicameralist in the House. The Conservatives have always been bicameralists, and we seem now to have been joined by the whole of the Labour party. On the first fundamental issue, therefore, there is widespread agreement.
	There is also widespread agreement on powers. We do not want radically to alter the existing powers. The plain fact is that the House of Lords does not feel able to use the powers that it has at present because it does not have the moral legitimacy to do so. It rarely uses the power of delay. It has used its power under the Parliament Acts only three or four times this century, and there is very little chance of its wanting to do so again on a major issue. I would like to see some of its powers increased. I would support the beefing up of the second Chamber's role as a constitutional longstop, but I would not go to the stake for that if it were the price of getting a measure through. We largely agree, therefore, that the existing powers are roughly right.
	Composition is the key issue. What composition of the Lords will enable it to fulfil a bicameral role in our constitution? In the 21st century, only a House that has the legitimacy of the ballot box behind it can hope to play a meaningful role in this country. The truth is that a wholly appointed House of Lords is no more than a consultative quango. It is not a House of Parliament, and to argue that we should retain an appointed House is really an argument for a form of unicameralism. Only a largely elected House can hope to take on the Executive in this place.
	That is the central flaw of Lord Wakeham's proposals. He wants an appointments commission to deal with the problem of patronage. Perhaps it would be possible to create such a body to prevent the growth of patronage, but at the very best an appointments commission would be a self-perpetuating oligarchy of the great and the good. It would command no more moral authority than the existing House. That is also the fundamental flaw in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford- on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who argues for a House appointed by patronage, with the Prime Minister retaining all his powers of appointment. Such a House also would have no moral authority.
	Many hon. Members have alluded to crucial objections to the argument that I have just made. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but I will deal with two. The first is that an elected House of Lords could duplicate what goes on here, and the second is that there is a risk of gridlock. Both those arguments are largely false. There will be duplication only if the electoral system and the terms of office are the same, but nobody is suggesting that they should be. We will of course elect Members of the Lords on longer terms—I favour non-renewable terms—and as a result the Lords will have a fundamentally different culture. In any case, the House of Commons will remain the major source of Executive authority, as the Government are formed from its Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central would like to beef that up by removing Ministers from the House of Lords altogether; I support that.
	The gridlock argument is also false. We have the Parliament Acts and there is no practical chance of them being removed from the statute book. We shall therefore get our way after a year at worst; this House will remain supreme. I urge people who disagree to look at the detailed argument on this set out by Lord Mackay in his report; he concluded that the gridlock argument was "a sterile debate" and I largely agree.
	I have outlined quite a lot of consensus on powers, composition, functions and bicameralism. There is also growing consensus on the practical steps to take us from where we are now to where we want to be. Most Members on both sides of the House would be prepared to accept the setting up of an all-party consultative body such as those established in 1948 and 1968. In 1948, consultation led to further amendment of the Parliament Act, but in 1968 it failed. However, the Government are rejecting all possibility of a joint Committee, which I deeply regret.
	Once we have thought about it a bit, most of us would be prepared to accept a long transition to a substantially—that is the favoured word these days and I am a "substantially" man—elected House of Lords. There is no need for brutal or instant expulsion of current Members. People have said that the existing members of the House of Lords will be around for a long time if we do not do something more brutal, but they probably will not. There is a low drop-out rate among life peers with an average age of 70, but if they are not replaced, they start falling off the shelf rather faster once they get to 80.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not.
	In any case, the participation rate of the over-80s is well under half that of the rest of the House of Lords. We should be prepared to compromise on the period of transition.
	Most important of all, most of us are prepared to compromise on the size of the elected element. I am a "largely" man, and favour an elected element of 80 per cent. or so. There is a role for a small remaining element that is appointed or, better, co-opted. I am prepared to compromise on that, but the elected element must be more than half to command moral authority in the country.
	There has never been greater consensus than we have now. The majority of the Labour party, but not those on the Government Front Bench, want to go down the road of much more election—at least 50 per cent. The majority of the Conservative party want to go down the same road, but not just yet our Front-Bench Members, although I am optimistic that they will. An overwhelming majority of the wider public want to go down that road.
	I am afraid that for much of the 20th century, Parliament—both the Lords and Commons—behaved as if it were in the 19th century. We now have a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of growing support on both sides of the House and in the country to create a second Chamber for the 21st century; let us not miss that opportunity.

Gordon Prentice: I shall not use my full 10 minutes, as I know that many colleagues wish to contribute to our debate. However, there are a number of things to which I wish to draw attention.
	Labour Members are being told by their own Government to support the White Paper; we are told that the Labour party supports the conclusions of the Wakeham report and will seek to implement them as effectively as possible. I do not believe that; I do not think that there is a majority in the parliamentary Labour party—I do not know, because we do not vote in the parliamentary Labour party—in favour of the Government's proposals and, indeed, those in the Wakeham report. I suspect that there is no support whatever in the wider Labour party for what is being proposed. Yesterday, however, the Lord Chancellor, opening a debate in the other place, said:
	"We have not followed every detail, but we believe our basic approach to be the commission's."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 563.]
	What a strange state of affairs. The Government are saying that they agree with the royal commission, while Lord Wakeham is repudiating their response to his report. On page 21 of today's Daily Mail, there is a picture of Lord Wakeham in all his robes with the Government's plan, which we are being invited to support. He states:
	"Labour would create a second Chamber of cronies"
	and then gives his reasons for saying so.
	I do not think much of the Government's White Paper, and I did not think much of the Wakeham proposals either. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said that it was a fix. We all know that what has been proposed for the other place was just a fix. The fascinating thing now is that it is all beginning to unravel. We are getting suggestions from the leadership that nothing is preserved in aspic or set in stone and that the Government are now going to listen. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that they were going to search for the centre of gravity. That is great. They should have done that searching and looked for a consensus ages ago, because a consensus does exist out there.
	What is my position? I have always believed in a small, directly elected second Chamber. We do not need an interim House of 750. What a joke. That could never be sold to people outside. We do not need a House of 600. That is another joke. We need a small second Chamber. If the United States Senate can get by with 100 Members, why can we not get by with a second Chamber of 100 or 200 Members? We certainly do not need what is being proposed. I want a separate supreme court. I want the bishops to be invited to leave the other place. I definitely disagreed with Wakeham—this proposal has been turned down by the Government—that the second Chamber should be opened up to religious representation in terms of the Buddhist, the Baptist, the Jain and the Jew. We do not need that. My politics are entirely secular. What a perverse consultation exercise it must be that proposes religious representation in this day and age in a Chamber of the Houses of Parliament. Most of all, however, I was against the proposals because I am sick of the patronage state. Many of my Labour party colleagues say that it is corrupting. It is not only corrosive but corrupting that there are people here who think that if they want to get into the second Chamber, they must religiously follow the Government line even when they know that the Government are wrong. It is corrupting and completely wrong.
	I want the House of Commons to retain its primacy. It is perfectly possible for it to do so, as long as the powers and functions are properly defined. That has been mentioned by colleagues in all parts of the House. Yet we get fed this stuff from the Front Bench saying that we cannot do anything too radical. I exclude the Leader of the House from that, as he is an ally. [Laughter.] I think that I have fatally wounded my right hon. Friend. Yes, I think that we need a second Chamber and I am relaxed about giving it some additional powers. I am relaxed about scrutiny of public appointments. The Liberal Democrats recommend scrutiny of World Trade Organisation treaties. Why not? I am completely relaxed about that. I do not go to bed at night saying, "We must retain all the powers that we now have in the House of Commons." I am chilled out about it, and I believe that that applies to many Labour Members. I do not accept the assertion that the Commons would be fatally undermined.
	I believe that we shall move towards a largely elected second Chamber. The Liberal Democrats want 80 per cent. of it to be elected and 20 per cent. nominated. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who is not in his place, and other Conservative Members said that 75 per cent. of the Conservative parliamentary Labour party—that was a Freudian slip; I meant the parliamentary party—want a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who carries a great deal of weight, said that his personal preference was for direct election of two thirds of Members of the other place. Although it is denied by a few at the top of the Labour party, a huge majority of the parliamentary party supports a wholly or substantially directly elected second Chamber.
	How do we get there? I was disappointed in the Government when it was not possible to establish the Joint Committee. I took up the matter some time ago with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who said in a parliamentary reply:
	"it was not possible to reach agreement with the other main political parties as to the terms of reference for the Joint Committee."—[Official Report, 6 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 508W.]
	The Government were saying that they would set up a Joint Committee if we supported their position. It is understandable that the Conservative party and members of other opposition parties refused to participate on that basis. The shadow Leader of the House said that he was relaxed about the establishment of a Joint Committee. I want the Government to participate in that Committee and not set parameters and terms of reference that so bind other parties that it will never get off the ground.
	If the Joint Committee gets nowhere, and Government obfuscation and foot dragging mean that it runs into the sand, Labour Members should demand a Bill to reform the other place. Opposition Members would support that. I would prefer a multi-option Bill. We have been down that road with Sunday trading and hunting. Such a measure would allow hon. Members to vote on an issue about which we have been prevented from expressing an opinion for years because that is not what new Labour does.
	I want to end with appointments.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has run out of time.

Gordon Prentice: Those comments will have to wait for another time.

Michael Fabricant: I do not know how I can follow that act, apart from agreeing with most of the comments of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
	It is useful to recall the way in which we reached the current sorry state of affairs. I have been looking at other Parliaments and other nations that have gone through such procedures. We all know about the long, hot summers in the 1780s and 1790s in Philadelphia when the American constitution was discussed. I have recently come back from Australia, where Australians have been celebrating 100 years of federation. I took the opportunity to find out how they reached the current position.
	The Australian constitution was written by delegates to the 1897 federal convention, which was open to the press and to the public. Its work was reported, debated and subject to public criticism and, at its completion, copies of the constitution were sent to the electors to be voted on. That was the democracy practised in Australia.
	What are we doing in the United Kingdom? The second sentence of the Prime Minister's introductory remarks to the White Paper states:
	"The Government began reform of the House of Lords two years ago with the removal of the rights of the hereditary peers to an automatic seat in Parliament."
	How was this achieved? My personal bible is Andrew Rawnsley's book, "Servants of the People", in which he describes the process rather well. I shall read a few sentences from the relevant chapter:
	"Irvine was sanctioned to up his offer to the survival of seventy-five of the hereditary peers pending the second stage of Lords' reform. 'We really do want a deal.' Cranborne had come down to 100. To bridge the gap between them, the Viscount wondered if the government would throw in the fifteen hereditaries who held offices. 'I'll talk to young Blair,' replied Irvine. The next day, Cranborne heard from Irvine: 'Done.' Cranborne asked: 'Will you give me the Earl Marshall and the Lord Great Chamberlain?' Irvine: 'Done.' The Viscount and the Cardinal, these peers of the realm, bargained about the future composition of one half of parliament with the sophistication of a couple of used-car dealers. Thus was British constitutional history made."
	This is where we find ourselves today, discussing the future of the other place.
	I have to be honest and say that if it had been up to me, I would not even have embarked on this change. I have a sense of history, and I believe that if something works, we should not try to fix it and we should not break it. I have heard the arguments that the House of Lords did not work, that it was not fair and that it had an in-built Conservative majority, but I have also heard arguments, which I know to be true, that on many occasions during Conservative Administrations, the House of Lords blocked legislation coming from the Conservative Government.
	I argue that the House of Lords did work, but I accept that the caravan has moved on and that we cannot turn the clock back. There now has to be reform of the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) asked whether there had been consensus in today's debate. There has not been consensus; there has been unanimity, on one issue at least: that the White Paper is wholly unacceptable because it is neither one thing nor the other. Accepting realpolitik, and the fact that the House of Lords must be reformed, I have no option but to say that it now has to be wholly elected. There is no other choice, because it needs legitimacy.
	The Leader of the House asked how it would be possible for the House of Commons to have primacy if the House of Lords were wholly elected. Others have argued that that could be made possible by enshrining the appropriate provision in law. The Leader of the House argued back, "Ah, but if you make laws here, and the people are elected there and have some legitimacy, they will argue for change, and change will come about." That is merely a question of detail relating to how we structure the House of Lords. It could be structured in such a way that, even though it were democratically elected, it would not have quite the legitimacy of the House of Commons, in which we represent constituencies.
	A number of people have mentioned the Senate in the United States. One possible example—I do not suggest that it is the only one—of how things might be done would be to say, "All right, we will elect one or two people per administrative area, per county or per unitary authority, regardless of population." That would involve democratic election, but because there would be an imbalance between the number of people electing each representative, such representatives would not have the legitimacy that we enjoy here in the House of Commons.
	The point is that there is a range of formulae by which we can contrive to elect people to the other place, give it legitimacy and give it fairness while ensuring that primacy remains here in the House of Commons. I believe, however, that the House of Commons can have its own legitimacy only if the House of Lords is also a respected organisation, and that cannot be the case if only 20 per cent. of its Members are elected or, indeed, even if two thirds are elected.
	I intervened on the Leader of the House to raise an argument that I want hon. Members to consider. There is considerable expertise in the House of Lords among hereditary and life peers and we would be unwise to reject the influence that they can have on our lives, so will he seriously consider this option? If we have a wholly elected House of Lords, which I would like, and if those elected Members have a vote, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce an arrangement, which might be only transitional, giving existing Members, for as long as they are alive and able to make a useful contribution, the right to attend debates and present their arguments without having a vote?
	I do not see why people should be frightened of that proposal. I accept the argument that the Leader of the House put to me when I made my intervention—that it would result in two classes of Member, voting and non-voting—but there are precedents for that in other Chambers and in company law. There is no reason for not retaining current Members of the House of Lords with expertise during the transitional period so that they may participate in debates but not vote. If nothing else, that would ensure a smoother transition than any abrupt change.
	At the beginning of the 21st century, it would be unacceptable to have another Chamber in this Parliament to which only 20 per cent. of members were elected. Any figure that we may announce, whether it be 20 per cent. or 80 per cent., will be merely arbitrary. Furthermore, whether we like it or not and whether we choose 80 per cent. or not, the figure will be transitional—eventually, it will be 100 per cent. Therefore, I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we must accept that the caravan has moved on, whether or not we admit that the House of Lords worked as it was and whether or not we liked or admired it. There must be a wholly elected Chamber and let us move forward on that basis.

Andrew Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House. The White Paper, deservedly, has had a pretty bad day and I cannot recall a single speech in favour of it. Even the Leader of the House was somewhat hesitant, so I suspect that the best future it can expect is that of a sand castle on a beach as the tide comes in—it will be washed away. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend has the courage to put it on firmer foundations and bring it back. Whatever the arrangement for achieving that—a joint committee, for example—we must consider the issue in the round. We must think about not just changing the House of Lords, but what Parliament does, because, in a sense, what we do down here is just as important. It is also part of the balance with what may go on in a second Chamber.
	The House must recognise that, since the 1911 settlement of powers between the two Houses, much of the power in Parliament has drained away. It is no good us saying that that is a matter of presentation or of methods. It is a fundamental fact that this Parliament no longer has anything like the power it had in 1911 to influence the behaviour of and opportunities for constituents. We must recognise that democracy needs power to energise it. Any one who has tried to run a school council or works council, in which people have no genuine powers, knows that making democracy work in such circumstances is extremely difficult.
	A declining Parliament is inevitable, because so many of the decisions that affect our constituents are no longer local or United Kingdom issues. We must face the fact of globalisation, and accept that many of the issues affecting our constituents are now controlled by world organisations such as the United Nations and its agencies and the World Trade Organisation, or by multinational companies. Much as we would like to democratise such institutions, it will not be easy, so we must concentrate on trying to make Parliament relevant to circumstances in which so much of the power has drained away.
	It is in those new circumstances that we want to make Parliament effective. Its energy has seeped away not just because of the changing, globalised world but because it has often allowed successive Governments and Prime Ministers to reduce us to lobby fodder. We must do something about that.
	The fundamental duty of Parliament now is to consider reforming all our procedures rather than merely tinkering with the House of Lords, and certainly rather than giving even more power and privilege to Prime Ministers or party leaders, as the White Paper seems to recommend. We must bring about change in order to create an effective democratic process.
	Many of my hon. Friends would say that electing far more people to the House of Lords would work, but I fear that that would be a fourth or fifth-rate solution. If necessary, I will probably vote for it on the ground that it is the least-bad option, but I feel that we should ask ourselves whether, in a changing world, we need more than 1,200 parliamentarians split between two Houses. That strikes me as a ridiculously large number. It may have been perfectly all right in 1911, when MPs were not paid, most were part-time, and people did not have the opportunities we have now; but if we want an effective Parliament, 600-plus is more than enough. We could have a very effective Parliament with just one Chamber—this Chamber—if we ensured that it performed properly the job that is now done ineffectually by two Houses.
	I would not go quite as far as abolishing the House of Lords. I would leave it with a residual function—the supreme court function—along with powers to allow this House to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years, albeit only in exceptional circumstances. I would also leave it with the power to insist that this House spend sufficient time scrutinising legislation, and that sufficient time should be allowed for effective scrutiny outside. Given that simple limiting of the powers of the House of Lords, I think that we could do everything perfectly effectively here. We do not need two Chambers.
	That means, however, that this House must change its attitude. We have tried to make it increasingly exclusive; we should be trying to make it inclusive. I do not think that anyone here remembers an occasion on which someone has come to the Bar of the House to address the Chamber, but in the past—quite a long time ago—people had an opportunity to do that, and even now Select Committees ask witnesses to address them. We could take some of the expertise that—allegedly and only in small quantities—exists in the House of Lords and make it available to this House, if we wanted to.
	I plead with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to examine the situation as a whole and to decide that we need a small, effective legislature, directly accountable to the electorate. That body should have the self-confidence to be inclusive and not exclusive. My right hon. Friend should take away these proposals and come back with a new look at Parliament that would make it effective for the 21st century.

Andrew Mitchell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). Although I disagree with much of what he said, I agree that this is a Parliament issue and not only a House of Lords issue. The Leader of the House said that he is counting heads and seeking to find a new equilibrium and a new approach. My views on that correspond closely to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who made an excellent speech. At the beginning of the debate, I assumed that I was in a minority of one and it is good to know that others oppose, in principle, any elected Members in the House of Lords.
	I strongly support the two key parameters laid out by the Leader of the House. In particular, it has been clear for a long time, despite the badinage between the two sides of the House, that the day of the hereditary peer has gone, although some would provide good service in a reconstituted House of Lords in the future.
	We should begin with the question of what the House of Lords is for. Its role as a revising Chamber has become increasingly important in recent years. The Government have rightly said that pre-legislative scrutiny is becoming more important, and we need better scrutiny of Bills, which are often ill thought through when they come before the House and are not necessarily improved in Committee. Such Bills would benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny and the expertise of the House of Lords. Another function of the House of Lords is to act as a brake on this Chamber, but it should not be a definitive one. It can also, in certain circumstances, provide constitutional protection. Those are all beneficial functions, but the House of Lords should not challenge this House.
	I fear that the Government's proposals are a dog's breakfast. They could have proposed a senate with 100 members and a House of Commons with 400 members, and I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that our number should be significantly reduced, because there are far too many of us. However, if the Government's proposals are accepted—amended by what appears to be the majority view in the House—we would have more than 1,000 elected legislators, and that is indefensible.
	Wider reforms have led to elected parish councils, elected district councils, elected county councils, elected regional councils, an elected Parliament in Scotland and an elected Assembly in Wales—not to mention the European Parliament—but politicians have become less and less respected by their constituents, as everyone acknowledges. If the answer to any question is that we need more elected politicians, we should look more carefully at the question in the first place.
	The proposal for a mixed membership, part appointed and part elected, is—as several hon. Members have said—the worst of all possible worlds. Of course the elected members down the Corridor will press for more powers—including ones that this House would not be willing to cede—but having two different types of members would be a recipe for disaster.
	The great benefit of the House of Lords as presently constituted is the quality of expertise that resides in it. As a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Lords Minister many years ago, I often went to watch debates in the other place and I was genuinely astonished by the sheer quality of expertise. In debates on defence, for example, field marshals, generals and other senior former service men were taking part. In debates on education, we had vice-chancellors and others from the educational establishment speaking. There was also expertise in debates on medical matters. These were high-quality debates that are not always replicated in this House. We should not lose sight of that.
	The great strength of many of those down the Corridor is that they have expertise, but, unlike all of us, they would recoil from the hustings and would be deeply unwilling to stand for election. If we were to proceed on the basis of an elected second Chamber, I ask colleagues: who will stand for election? It will not be the repositories of great expertise that are in the other place at the moment.
	The point was well made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). Not enough people come into this place with genuine and deep experience of trades outside of politics. The blunt truth is that the House needs more people like the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend.
	I spent two years as the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in charge of the candidates department. The difficulty in getting people who are not part of the political scene or the political groupings in society to come into politics and take an interest is enormous. All three of the main political parties find that to be true. We will have more and more professional politicians trying to come down to Westminster, and it will be those who cannot get in here who will proceed down the Corridor to try to get elected to the House of Lords. We will have a Chamber of research assistants and special advisers; we will have an assembly of the skimmed milk of British politics. That would be a serious danger.
	I am against any election to the House of Lords, for the reasons set out so excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Remarks made about Lord Wakeham this afternoon have, on reflection, been wide of the mark. The great thing that he achieved was a consensus, from which the Government have now departed. Mention was made of a quote from Lord Wakeham, but the whole quote was not given. I would like to place it on the record, because he was right. He said that an elected Chamber
	"would inevitably compromise the role of the other place as the United Kingdom's decisive political forum. It would produce a second Chamber that was a clone of the other place, full of professional politicians and dominated by the political parties."
	He said that, in taking evidence
	"nobody—but nobody—thought that that would be a desirable outcome. Such a chamber would either be a compliant rubber stamp for Government legislation or a source of legislative gridlock."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 582.]
	I do not agree with Lord Wakeham's proposals for a limited election, but to achieve that consensus he came up with a far-fetched scheme. I do not believe that it is the right way to proceed, but in order to get the consensus, no doubt he did.
	Ultimately, legitimacy comes from democratic election, but democratic elections are not the only source of that legitimacy.

Tony Worthington: Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I was gravely disappointed by the White Paper. Like many, one of the reasons that I came into politics was to enhance and extend democracy. The White Paper does not do that but extends the very damaging system of patronage that runs through our system. Rightly, we are throwing out the patronage of the past by discarding the hereditary peerage in Parliament, but we are replacing it with the patronage of the present.
	At least 60 per cent. of the Members of the new House of Lords will be chosen by party political leaders without reference to the parties or to the people at all. That totally ignores what Wakeham said, and not enough detail has been given of some of the other changes proposed in that respect. The present life peers are there for life, by definition. Some go back to the early 1960s, and have been appointed by eight different Prime Ministers. Some have come through a party political route, but many have come via other routes. It is sometimes difficult to see the links that life peers who are registered with a political party have had with that party in the past.
	The proposed powers of the Prime Minister and other political leaders are worth examination. The number of nominated political Members in the second Chamber will probably be 332, and page 21 of the White Paper makes it clear that the Government want them to serve for terms of only four to five years.
	If it had been established in time to reflect the pattern of voting at the last election, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would have been required to find about 140 Members of the proposed new House of Lords. The Tory leader would have had to choose about 100 names, and the Liberal Democrats would have had to find more people than they have MPs. I was therefore delighted to hear the Liberal Democrat party disown that possibility.
	The Prime Minister personally would have to appoint more than 140 Members of the House of Lords over a period of four or five years. The appointments would be short term and subject to the Prime Minister's definition of good behaviour. The appointments would also be subject to the whim of the electorate in terms of increased or decreased share of votes. A party could do well in the polls but people could lose their places in the Lords because one voter—the party leader—did not reckon them.
	As at present, Members of the new House of Lords would receive no salary, only expenses. There would be no pension or resettlement allowance, so Members would be totally dependent on the patron. The motto would be, "Vote with me, or you're out. I shall not renew your licence."
	In my view, that is far worse than the rotten borough system—at least Old Sarum had seven voters. For 140 Members of the future House of Lords, there would be one voter. He or she would decide whether a Member remained in the other Chamber.
	Who would receive such appointments? To be appointed, people would have to be known to the Prime Minister or the party leader of the day. How does one get to know such people? I do not imagine that too many citizens of Clydebank and Milngavie will ever get to know a Prime Minister and thereby be appointed to a new second Chamber. The power proposed to be given to any future Prime Minister or party leader does not honour the Labour party's manifesto commitment.
	I do a lot of work on international development and creating constitutions for developing countries. If people in such a country as Afghanistan produced a proposal like this, they would be laughed out of court. The moral to that story is that I hope that the good Lord Irvine is never sent to Afghanistan as a peacemaker, as that would only cause more problems.
	Another of the major flaws in the White Paper deserves mention. It is rightly accepted that the nations and regions of this country should be recognised in the membership system of the House of Lords. It is proposed that one fifth of the Chamber—120 Members—should be elected on that basis. That election would probably happen at the same time as a general election and be based on European election constituencies. Scotland would therefore have eight Members, Wales four and Northern Ireland three.
	I think that that proposal is deeply flawed. The whole membership of the House should reflect the nation and all its regions, not just 20 per cent. of it. It is inevitable that a system of personal patronage for 60 per cent. of seats will mean that political appointments will reflect the networks and friendship patterns of London. Appointments will go to people who operate around Whitehall and are known here. Having a separate box for the nations and regions is an example of tokenism, and it exposes the realisation that the appointed Members would be based, overwhelmingly, in London and the south-east.
	Also, large constituencies, such as the European constituencies, have proved disastrous when it comes to preserving the link between politicians, people and parties. They have failed for Europe.
	I know that Members of a second Chamber should not do the same job as MPs, but that can be dealt with by sensible legislation and administrative rules. The list system is deeply unpopular with political parties and with the people, as it is seen to centralise power and increase patronage. Also, I am sure that the role of the party leaderships would remain evident in the regions and nations if we went down the route of having a list system. An alternative exists, however, in respect of both regional Members and of those chosen by patronage.
	After the culling of the Scottish MPs, we will have about 640 Members of this House. One of the simplest ways of dealing with this would be to have one Member of the House of Lords for every two Members of Parliament. The House of Lords would then have about 320 Members which I think is too big, but many people have referred to the ludicrous system of having 750 or 600 Members of a revising Chamber. However, I do not believe that the representation of regions and nations should be dealt with in a separate box.
	What is most objectionable about the proposal is the idea of patronage. We should reject it. The consensus that is emerging is the only way forward. The whole second Chamber, or a substantial proportion of it, should be made up of people who are elected in the normal way. 6 pm

Pete Wishart: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I welcome this debate on Lords reform. I share the views of many who have spoken about the lack of democratic accountability in the proposed new House of Lords.
	We see this as a lost opportunity for the Government. If they had been clever, Lords reform could have been used as an exercise to re-engage the electorate and show that the House is concerned about voter apathy and the perception that the political institutions are beyond the control of the British public. Lords reform was the Government's big opportunity to show that they are prepared to address what is seen as a widening democratic deficit between the governing Executive and the governed electorate.
	With Lords reform, we could have started to re-engage the public with the whole process of government. What do we have in its place? It is proposed that the institution will have only a small minority of its membership directly elected. The unelectable House of Lords will be transformed into the indefensible new Labour house of cronies.
	We already know what the public think. Only some 14 per cent. of the public support the White Paper's proposal that the second Chamber should have a majority of appointees and only a minority of elected Members. It is easy to see why. The public do not like the idea of political carve-ups and fixes in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors. When the public have no say in who inhabits our political constitutions, it leads to immediate alienation. When the public have no sense of public ownership of our political institutions, they view them with justified suspicion.
	The majority of places in the new House of Lords will be decided by a statutory, independent, Appointments Commission. Am I the only one to see that as a fig leaf for extended prime ministerial patronage? The majority of people who will serve on the commission will be Labour party members who, I suggest, will be informed by the Government. Is there any real difference between Government and prime ministerial patronage? If there is, I should like to hear what it is.
	We can also presume that there will be no place for minority parties on the commission. We in the SNP and Plaid Cymru are the main Opposition parties in our nations, yet we have no meaningful role within the United Kingdom Government. I am not making a pitch to be involved in part of the process but simply showing that, given the House's careless establishment approach, any new Chamber must be a decision for the public and not subject to a centralised decision-making process.
	The one question that has to be asked and which has been missing from the debate, other than being put by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall- Andrews), is whether there is a need for a second Chamber at all. If we asked the public what their predominant image of the House of Lords was, I would wager that a majority of the responses would describe a belligerent old soul napping while listening to an interminable speech by a fellow octogenarian. The belief that the House of Lords is viewed with any great affection is misplaced. There is genuine bemusement as to what it does and what function it performs.
	The Scotsman helpfully reminded us recently of the chorus of the peers, as sung by Gilbert in "Iolanthe". It goes:
	"The House of peers,
	Throughout the years,
	Did nothing in particular,
	And did it very well".
	The House of Lords has excited in the public an unusual and curious form of dismissive apathy. That is why I find some of the views of some Conservative Members curious. There is no Conservative Front-Bench view of what should happen with the new House of Lords, but we see from their 18 years in government that that House was sometimes presented as a paradigm of democratic virtue. I can understand why some Conservative Members feel that way. For a long time, they have had a large Conservative majority there. Even now, when their membership of this House is at its lowest and their poll ratings are at an all-time low, there is still a Conservative majority in the other place. If that is democracy Conservative-style, we are well rid of it.
	Do we need a second Chamber at all? Let us look at the experience elsewhere in the world. Bicameral legislatures are in the minority. A comprehensive survey of national Parliaments undertaken by the Inter- Parliamentary Union in 1995 identified that, of a total of 178 state legislatures, about 127 were unicameral. Indeed, bicameralism seems to be some strange historic throwback to pre-democratic days—often, as with the existing House of Lords, a desire to reflect deep class differences. It is even argued that originally bicameralism was a means to incorporate different classes in government. The lesson of bicameralism that the United Kingdom has to offer is that it has ensured the maintenance and accentuation of class differences. It has done little to ensure that the Government and Executive of the day are held to proper account.
	Lords reform is also an important issue for the self-government and independence movements of the United Kingdom nations. We are faced with the possibility of another layer of elected Government. In Scotland, for example, we will have elections for this place, for the Scottish Parliament, for the European Parliament, for the local authority and for this new House of Lords. The SNP's solution for this democratic smorgasbord is to have direct elections to a normal, independent Scottish Parliament and to the European Parliament, with scrutiny provided by strong pre-legislative committees in the Scottish Parliament.
	The committee system of the Scottish Parliament shows that unicameralism can work. That system is one of the Parliament's main successes and, because of it, Scotland does not require a second Chamber to scrutinise the large Scottish domestic health, education and criminal justice Departments. Pre-legislative committee scrutiny means that most of the work is done before the legislation even reaches the Chamber.
	Pre-legislative scrutiny by powerful committees can allow for expert witnesses to be called and for a proper examination of all the issues involved. Powerful pre-legislative committees could combine the roles of the Standing and Select Committees of this House. They could be given extra powerful functions. Those committees could initiate their own legislation, scrutinise primary and secondary legislation and conduct inquiries into matters as the Administration and Executive require.
	That is a modern, 21st-century solution that would eliminate the need for a second Chamber. It is an illustration that what is needed is not Lords reform, but Lords abolition. I appreciate that abolition is not an option for this Government. It is a long time since there was a strong abolitionist wing in the Labour party. However, we are not too far from the days when the Labour party believed in a fully democratic second House. In its 1992 manifesto, the party promised
	"the replacement of the House of Lords with a new elected second chamber".
	The Labour party constitutional committee, which was co-chaired by one Tony Blair MP in 1993, reported that "proper democratic elections" should be introduced for the House of Lords.
	The main line of argument that is now deployed by Ministers is that a full and democratic House of Lords would be a challenge to this place. Why did they not think of that when they were in opposition and they were suggesting full democratic elections? Why did it only occur to them when they came to government?
	Furthermore, the argument is fundamentally flawed because the proposed plan for the second Chamber is to diminish its powers and not to strengthen it. If this House cannot, and should not, withstand the challenge from another element of the parliamentary system, why should we bother with a second Chamber at all?
	We live at a time when the right to choose or dismiss our rulers is beginning to be seen as under threat. It is the standard refrain that the electorate are too bored or too cynical to vote. We only need to think of the turnout at the general election last year to realise that that may be the case. There is a world of difference, however, between the voters choosing whether to exercise their franchise and the politically weak using that fact as a justification for curtailing it. It would be better to have no upper Chamber than to have one that entrenches the political cronyism that is in danger of becoming such a trademark of this Government.
	It is difficult to know what is being attempted by the second Chamber. It will still be a House of Lords but it will be dissociated from the peerage, and those who sit in it will not be Lords but will still be MLs—Members of the Lords. It seems to be the worst of both worlds: a Chamber that is neither democratic nor fully meritocratic.
	Modernisation has proved something of a difficulty for the self-styled modernising new Labour Government. Modernisation, whether in this place or in the other House, seems to have been one long-drawn-out fudge with no focus or any clear attempt to define what it is hoped to achieve. Scrutiny is important, but so is democracy. What is proposed for the second Chamber is a shabby compromise, which will satisfy absolutely no one.

Peter Bradley: I cannot pretend to be able to pack as much into 10 minutes as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) did, but I will do my best.
	Until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I did not think that I would hear one that actually strengthened the arguments for the proposals in the White Paper. However, whatever the deficiencies in the proposals, about which we have heard plenty from Members from both sides of the House, we should pause and reflect, and concede that we would not even be debating the possibility of Lords reform were it not for the Government, and that they deserve some credit for that.
	The Lords has required reform since the day of its inception, precisely because it has provided privileged access not just to wealth but to political power, irrespective of the merit of those who wield it and irrespective of the will of those over whom they have exercised it. It must be said that it has been a privilege that has been largely upheld, and indeed shared, for centuries by the Conservatives—those same Conservatives who have opposed Labour's attempts to reform the House of Lords for the past 100 years.
	Now the caravan has moved on and we cannot turn back the clock, as was memorably said this afternoon, and the Conservatives are yet again demonstrating their unerring instinct for survival in the face of constitutional change. I welcome that, and Opposition Members have made some thoughtful and important contributions to the debate.
	This is an historic opportunity, which brings with it historic responsibilities. It is not, in my view, a time for tinkering. It is not, in my view, a time for equivocation, or for incremental change that will require yet more hand-wringing and anguish and further incremental change year on year. We have a duty to get this reform right. We have a duty, indeed, to bring about a radical break with the past that shows that this Parliament—and the broader society that we represent or seek to represent—is forward-looking, confident and progressive. If that means that we must find ourselves in conflict with vested interests, whether the Law Lords or the bishops, that is unfortunate, but so be it. In the House of Lords, or the second Chamber—or the house of correction or whatever it is known as in future—no one should enjoy privileged access to their seat in our legislature.
	The Government have a right to be proud of the programme of constitutional reform that they have pursued over the last four or five years and of the way in which they have ceded rights and influence to people outside Westminster. They have been much more radical than they have received credit for being. We have had the Human Rights Act 1998. We have had devolution to Northern Ireland, to Scotland, to Wales and to London. We have had the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We have had the first crucial phase of Lords reform. But in most of those measures—certainly in devolution to Wales and to London, and in the Freedom of Information Act—there has been a real difficulty for Government in simply letting go. This White Paper is constipated beyond most people's experience of anal retention.
	There is a flaw at the heart of the White Paper. At paragraph 15, it poses a rhetorical question. It says:
	"'Whom do you choose to govern you?' The UK's political system is built around that principle."
	That is absolutely right, but if it is true of one Chamber it must follow logically that it is true of the other. However, the thesis of the White Paper seems to be to ask, "Why should the upper Chamber be elected?" rather than, "Why should it not be elected?" The proof that has to be the test of the quality and legitimacy of the second Chamber is whether it is elected, and an exceptional case has to be made for its Members who are not elected. Unfortunately, the White Paper puts that proposition the other way around.
	The second Chamber has to embody some key principles. It must be distinctive in its role and function, as many hon. Members have said today. It must not replicate, imitate or duplicate the work of the House of Commons. It must be complementary, not competitive, so it must inevitably have subsidiary powers. It must be legitimate, and much of that legitimacy will come through election, whether whole or substantial. It must be representative of society and the nation at large. Indeed, it must be efficient. There have been many arguments for a smaller Chamber than that proposed, which would be in the interests of efficiency, as well as those of democracy and accountability.
	The problem with the White Paper is that it would not confer legitimacy of election on 20 per cent. of the membership; nor would the political patronage that it would preserve. It is absurd to claim that introducing democracy to the second Chamber would somehow undermine the democratic credentials of the first Chamber. It would strengthen the legitimacy of Parliament, and it would be good for the second Chamber, as well as for the House of Commons.
	As many hon. Members have suggested, introducing such democracy would strengthen not only the confidence that the electorate have in their Parliament, but their rights to hold Parliament to account. Too little has been said not only about our vested interest in holding the Executive, the second Chamber or Parliament to account, but about the interests of the people who send us here.
	Election, not appointment, must be the principle on which the second Chamber is founded. It is perfectly possible to preserve the democratic principle of election without challenging the primacy of this place. The latter is the chief argument against election made in the White Paper.
	What makes our legitimacy special is the constituency link. We are elected by and accountable to defined communities, which we seek to represent. It is perfectly possible to elect people indirectly in a way that confers a legitimacy on them that is not confrontational or equal to our own in this place. However, I accept the role of appointment in improving and extending the representativeness of the second Chamber to encompass not just the regions and nations of this country, but the various walks of life and professions, whether those involved are humble—perhaps I should not use that word—or are engineers or professors of medicine.
	Representativeness is important, but we know that the vagaries of the electoral system cannot guarantee it. We complain and wring our hands in this place, saying that we are not sufficiently representative of the community at large, so there must be a role for appointment, but no more than a third of the second Chamber's membership should be appointed. I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said in that respect.
	If the second Chamber were to have a membership of 450—I suggest that it should be smaller, but 450 is the upper limit—on the basis of the national share of the vote at the general election in June there would be 122 Labour, 95 Conservative, 55 Liberal, 28 other and 150 appointed Members. Even the governing party would have no overall control, and the largest group would be appointed and, no doubt, independent Members. That would preserve the electoral principle, but it would also secure the principle of subsidiarity, representativeness and, indeed, independence.
	Finally, we need a truly modern second Chamber. I spoke earlier about the need for radical reform. If we ask people to sit, or if they ask us to allow them to sit, in our legislature, they should regard that as their principal occupation, and they should be paid for it. They should be expected to attend or face disqualification. In no way should the bishops or the Law Lords believe that they have a moral entitlement automatically to be given seats in the legislature, but there is nothing to prevent them—as nothing prevented the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—from putting themselves forward for nomination or, in theory, election; and the same applies to all current peers.
	All the peers should go, but if they wish to seek election or nomination, they should be free to do so; otherwise they should be given the same severance payments as Members of Parliament enjoy when we retire or are defeated in the polls.
	The warning that I would issue to my colleagues is that we must build a consensus that goes beyond the consensus that simply opposes the White Paper. As has been repeated in the debate, previous reforms have foundered precisely because of lack of agreement about the shape of the second Chamber. That is the last defence of those who support the White Paper.
	We should also warn those who support the White Paper that there is agreement on one issue: that the White Paper does not provide the basis for reform.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Norman Lamb: This has been a fascinating debate in which not a single speaker has spoken in support of the proposals in the White Paper. I suggest that that point also extends to the views of the Leader of the House. It is rare for a set of Government proposals to achieve the distinction of uniting virtually everyone outside their payroll in opposition to the proposals. The Government say that they seek consensus and, ironically, they are achieving consensus—one that circulates around something very different from what is proposed in the White Paper.
	I wish to challenge a specific point that the Leader of the House made in the debate on 7 November and which he repeated today. He sought to justify the proposals on the composition of the second Chamber by praying in aid the claim that many second Chambers throughout the world are made up of a mixed membership. That is true, but in virtually all cases the balance is predominantly in favour of the elected element. I accept that, in some cases, indirect election plays a part, but in only 15 countries worldwide is appointment used as the predominant means of selection to the second Chamber.
	The only western industrialised country that has a wholly appointed second Chamber is Canada. Its second Chamber is based on our House of Lords, so it is hardly the model that we want to follow now. As Meg Russell of The Constitution Unit put it in her 1999 study of second Chambers, the main problem in Canada
	"is the lack of public respect for the senate due to its appointed basis. It is not seen as democratically legitimate. Appointees are seen as recipients of cynical patronage."
	We should listen carefully to those wise words.
	The same study identifies only two countries—Malaysia and Swaziland—that combine a significant number of appointees with fewer elected Members. Those are the models that the Government seek to follow with these proposals.
	The extent of patronage could be even worse. If the 20 per cent. elected element is elected using the closed-list system that operates for the European Parliament, the power of patronage would apply not just to the political appointments but to the elected element as well. The party bosses would determine who was top of the list. The second Chamber would be almost entirely created by patronage and appointment.
	I want to deal with the arguments of the Leader of the House about the concern in the shift of power from one House to another. Much has been made of the Government's fear of a significant shift of power from this House to a more legitimate second Chamber. Their solution appears to be to ensure that the proposed second Chamber lacks legitimacy and, therefore, power. Experience from other countries suggests that that fear has been significantly overstated and is without substance. The assertion is made without any evidence to support it.
	We all want an effective Parliament; we do not want endless gridlock. However, the correct balance can be achieved by properly designing the role, functions and powers of the second Chamber rather than by neutering it by way of membership by appointment and patronage. The net result of the proposals is not to shift power from one House to the other, but to further that shift from Parliament to the Executive, through the power of patronage. That must be fought at all costs.
	Such is the opposition to the White Paper that three options are possible. I cannot imagine that the Government will legislate on the basis of a 20 per cent. elected element. The first option, therefore, is for them to rethink their case in its entirety, to listen to the developing consensus and to return with coherent proposals for reform of Parliament as a whole, including this place, to make us more effective, more democratic and more accountable. That would attract the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	The second option is to attempt to buy off internal opposition by increasing the percentage marginally. The third is to withdraw the proposals with no commitment to return with an alternative. The last two options worry me most. There has been much talk of the buy-off option in recent days, with an increase in the elected element of, say, 30 or 35 per cent. It is a common ploy to start with something that will not secure support, because it can lower expectations and set the context for debate. However, the opposition would have been the same had the Government proposed 35 per cent. as a starting point. That is subject to the same criticism of being undemocratic and dominated by patronage and appointment.
	To a large extent, we have to rely on the reformers in the Cabinet—if there are any, apart from the Leader of the House—and Labour Back Benchers to stop a stitch-up. Well over 100 Labour Back Benchers signed the early-day motion supporting a second Chamber that is wholly or substantially elected. Please let them not go back on that principle. The country is relying on them to hold fast on that.
	We also know that the Leader of the House wants something more radical. He was, self-evidently, a signatory to the Cook-Maclennan agreement that gave clear support for a democratic and representative second Chamber. The proposals do not match that test. Today the right hon. Gentleman set himself against a wholly elected second Chamber, but I listened carefully and he did not say that he is against a substantially elected second Chamber. I hope that he will lead the fight for something that is very different from what is set out in the White Paper.
	The third option of keeping the status quo appears to have been threatened in the past couple of days by the Lord Chancellor. Most people would find that option abhorrent and it must be resisted. Indeed, it would directly contradict the principle, as stated today by the Leader of the House, of removing the hereditary element in its entirety.
	We have an historic opportunity to reform the second Chamber, but we must get it right. There is a great deal of legitimate talk about a loss of trust in the democratic process, as demonstrated by a falling turnout and disillusionment with politics and politicians. Nothing would do more to reinforce those trends than to pack the second Chamber with political appointments. Imagine the turnout for the elected element of such a Chamber. The Cook-Maclennan report stated in 1997:
	"There is today a pressing need to renew democracy in Britain."
	That is as true today—if not more so—as it was then. Let us consign the White Paper to the dustbin and start again with something that is more legitimate.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, not least because I think that I am the only new Labour Member to have been called. I am aware that many others would like to speak.
	The case for reform was made cogently by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is why, above all else, I hope that the Government will not come away from the debate thinking that the situation is impossible and that they cannot introduce reform that will carry the day in this Chamber, proceed to the House of Lords and create a new system.
	We need reform because Britain needs a parliamentary system in the totality of which the people can have confidence. My constituents do not have confidence in the whole parliamentary system. They have worries about this House, but they have far more worries about the other House, which they see as a wholly undemocratic and unrepresentative body that regularly acts as a bar to their legitimate political aspirations. Under the new proposals, that situation would not be improved. There is an urgent need for reform because there is only one other country in the world that has the same system as us, and that is Lesotho. It is about time we struck out and joined countries that have a more open, democratic system.
	As many hon. Members have said, the Government's proposals are misguided and wrong. First, the figure of 20 per cent. for the second Chamber's elected Members is marginal and paltry. To offer the people of Britain a 20 per cent. share in the country's democracy is to waste an opportunity. The turnout for such elections would be pathetically small; indeed, we would almost be asking people not to bother to vote. The Government's proposals would lead to a House that was far too large. Surely a second Chamber should have no more than between 250 and 300 Members.
	A couple of Members talked about the period of attrition, and I must correct their figures. I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the Liberal Democrat actuary is incorrect, and the rate of attrition would be a little faster than he stated, but then Liberal Democrat figures are often inaccurate. Every year, 18 Members of the House of Lords are gathered up into a place that is, I suspect, rather similar to the Lords, so the grim reaper paces rather faster than the hon. Gentleman believes. None the less, under these proposals, we would be facing at least 10 years in which the second Chamber dwindled into gagadom. The period of attrition would mean also that the Prime Minister would probably not be appointing anybody but the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Chamber in the next 10 years.
	Another problem with the proposals which has already been mentioned is that although at the moment we have the same system as Lesotho, we would change to a system the same as those in Malaysia and Swaziland. Surely Britain, as the mother of Parliaments, should be able to devise a better system for the 21st century.
	One of the most profound points in the debate was made by the Leader of the House when he asked for a centre of gravity. What we have seen developing today is more a centre of gravity than a consensus. It is fair to say that there is no consensus because people want to make their own specific proposals, but a clear centre of gravity is developing, first and foremost, around the idea that we should have a second Chamber, and secondly around the idea that it should be a small Chamber. Everybody who has referred to the size of the second Chamber has said that it should be small. Thirdly, the Chamber should have no more than secondary, revising powers. I do not see why it should not be called the second Chamber as a means of emphasising its secondary role. It is time we ditched the term "House of Lords". It would be particularly bizarre to call it that if it no longer contained traditional peers.
	Another idea around which a centre of gravity has formed is that of offering some measure of redundancy to Members at the other end of the building. As someone in the parliamentary Labour party said yesterday, if we want our turkeys to vote for Christmas, we must offer them a lot of cranberry sauce.

Eric Forth: What about stuffing?

Chris Bryant: That's an idea.
	I am quite happy for Members of the Lords to have club privileges. They can wine and dine there until the day they die, if they want. I am happy for them to receive some money, although perhaps we should base it on their attendance in the past two years. That would help us to get from A to Z.
	Finally, on issues with a substantial centre of gravity, nearly everybody has spoken today about a largely elected second Chamber, which means more than 50 per cent. If the Government introduced proposals for a second Chamber with a 50 per cent. elected element, they would find considerably more support among Labour Members and, I suspect, across the Floor of the House. As a footnote, I should add that I prefer openness to a closed system; I hope that the system for electing Members of the European Parliament will be changed to an open one at the next election.
	Many Opposition Members have raised the issue of the challenge to the Commons from a Chamber with a significant chunk of elected Members. That is a red herring and a simple mistake. Any new Chamber that is created, even if its Members are solely nominated, will start to challenge this one. Anyone, even if only the 20 per cent. share of elected Members, will start to challenge the moral authority and legitimacy of this Chamber, but that does not mean that they will have the power to overturn decisions made in the Commons, the bedrock of our democracy, which is based on constituency membership.
	There is no reason why a strengthened Parliament Act could not make clear the exact powers of a secondary, solely revising Chamber without the need to write a new constitution, and differentiate them from those of this Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was wrong to say that a majority of two-Chamber Parliaments are not directly or indirectly elected. In fact, 31 of the 58 second Chambers are wholly elected; in none of those Parliaments is there a major problem with rowing between the two Chambers.
	In conclusion—and only one person in the Chamber could say this—as a former priest in the Church of England, I think that it is time the bishops were given their marching orders. It is unlikely that the Government will include in their proposals any suggestion that they will take on the whole Church of England, but since they have moved away substantially from the Wakeham proposals, which would have created Lords Spiritual of various Christian denominations, it is time to have more courage and get rid of the whole Bench of bishops. The days of the rochet and chimere are surely over.
	I hope that the Government take the opportunity to return to the House in the near future with proposals for reform. There is a potent argument in favour of reform. My constituents do not often discuss the House of Lords, but they find it bizarre that the House of Commons can vote several times with enormous majorities on issues such as foxhunting and the age of consent, yet their decisions do not become law. We need to change many aspects of the way that we do business in the House so that we can do it better. However, we need to change the House of Lords as a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Government will give us the tools to do so in the next 12 months.

Andrew Rosindell: I make no secret of the fact that I oppose reform of the House of Lords. There is a valid case for retaining the strong traditions that have kept our parliamentary system great for so long, including the hereditary principle on which the monarchy itself is founded.
	I agree with many of the previous speakers—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—that the Government are proposing not a second Chamber, but more of a House of cronies with more elected politicians, as if we have not got enough already. [Hon. Members: "Resign!"] I was a Tory gain, so I shall not be resigning. Equally, I understand that there appears to be no going back on the idea that we should have an elected element in the newly constituted second Chamber, but I believe that this new element should incorporate as many of the existing traditions of the House of Lords and the British Parliament as possible. It seems to me that the Government's proposal lacks a basis of democracy, popular support and international precedents. Their proposals suggest far more sinister motives: a cynical, electorally motivated desire to produce a second Chamber that will be an enfeebled stooge.
	I hope that the House will consider alternative options, one of which I should like to suggest now. I believe that the second Chamber should be reorganised on the basis not only of the traditional elements, but of an elected territorial element. I refer not to any notion of the units designed by Labour for regional government or to the artificial boundaries contrived for the House of Commons and European elections, but to the nation's historic counties. With representatives elected from each of the historic counties, using their traditional boundaries, the second Chamber would restore pride, vitality and diversity to Britain's over-centralised system of government, giving electors local links to those in the second Chamber and possibly rekindling a sense of local patriotism without challenging the representative status of their Members of Parliament. Middlesex, Westmorland, Rutland and Huntingdonshire are just a few examples of the counties that could be restored. What an opportunity we have to do that.
	The same basis can be extended to our great cities, such as Birmingham, Glasgow, Canterbury, York, Cardiff, Belfast and, indeed, London. The second Chamber could also give a voice to the overseas territories—a point that was first mooted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in the 22 November debate on the overseas territories. Why should not Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and all British people have representation in this, the Parliament of the United Kingdom? I would also include the Crown dependencies. Indeed, territorial representation in a second Chamber would be a counterbalance to the population-based representation of the Commons, as the United States Senate is in relation to the House of Representatives.
	A second Chamber giving voice to the nation's historic counties would be democratic, historically relevant and easily understood and supported by the public, and would have international precedents. It would also make geographical sense. I hope that hon. Members and especially the Leader of the House will consider my proposal. I urge a radical rethink of this most important of issues so that we get a second Chamber that is representative rather than one that merely speaks the voice of the Government.

Greg Knight: The debate has been interesting but all too short. The Government should have allowed more time for our deliberations. Those of us who have been part of the usual channels were not surprised that the Government conveniently scheduled a statement today, thus further curtailing our debate. The Opposition would have viewed favourably a proposal by Leader of the House to suspend the decision to end the debate at 7 o'clock.
	The reasons for not holding a longer debate or a two-day debate such as that in the House of Lords are clear from Labour Members' speeches. The debate is of the Government's choosing on proposals of their choosing and at a time of their choosing. Despite all that, how many Labour Members spoke in support of the White Paper? Twelve Labour Members spoke; not one supported it. That is unprecedented in my experience. Even in the days when Lady Thatcher and John Major proposed measures that were considered unpopular in the Conservative party, there was always an element of support in the Chamber. As the debate progressed, we could see some of the edges of the White Paper's pages turning green.
	It is not only Labour Members who are unimpressed with the Government's proposals. Lord Richard, the Prime Minister's first appointed Leader of the House of Lords, has described current proposals as "half-baked" and no more than "tokenism". The reason for producing such a dog's dinner was provided by Lord Stoddart, a Labour politician—[Hon. Members: "Former Labour politician."]—who complained this week about the Prime Minister's "control freakery".
	If today's debate is anything to go by, the Government's preferred method of House of Lords reform is rightly lying on the Floor in tatters. The proposals have been universally condemned. No new Labour project has received such a bad press from across the media spectrum. The Mirror, which is usually an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Labour party, stated on 9 November:
	"Robin Cook made a reasonable fist of presenting New Labour's 'reforms' of the House of Lords. Which is all the more surprising, say Labour MPs, because the Leader of the House doesn't believe a word of the script. This mish-mash of patronage, rigged elections and gerrymandering has gone down like a cup of cold sick. It is a transparent attempt by the government to swap the old permanent Tory majority in the upper chamber for a permanent New Labour majority."

Graham Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the Conservative alternative to the White Paper?

Greg Knight: The White Paper allows until the end of the month for the conclusion of consultations. We have a position, but it has not been published yet. It will be made clear before the end of January.
	On 8 November, The Times stated:
	"Tony Blair has secured his place in history already as the most prolific dispenser of prime ministerial patronage in the House of Lords since life peers were created, in 1958 . . . In his brief four and a half years of power, Mr. Blair has appointed 248 peers, easily more than the 216 created by Baroness Thatcher in her 11-year tenure. In a House of Lords containing just over 700 peers, more than a third owe their places in Parliament to one Prime Minister."
	The Evening Standard, which supports reform, has been no less critical. On 7 November, it stated:
	"a principally nominated House can never command serious authority as the second chamber . . . Any government will feel free to override its views at will. Second, the House of Lords will be increasingly dominated by peers appointed because of their relationship to the political leaders of the day . . . Such figures have always existed and often been honoured, but their role will now be expanded."
	Many interesting points have been raised in the debate, but, sensing the difficulties that lay ahead, the Prime Minister yesterday appeared to justify his proposals by saying that there was no clear-cut alternative and by implication that the existence of a wide spectrum of views meant that the House should accept the package, warts and all. That is an interesting theory, and it reminds me of the curate's egg—an appropriate metaphor in this case.
	The Prime Minister's statement reminds me of the bishop offering the curate an egg that is good in parts and bad in others. The curate must eat the egg, so as not to offend the bishop. I think that the Prime Minister was hoping that the House would do something similar today. I have to tell him that many Opposition Members do not want to eat that egg at all. On the other hand, many Labour Members are so afraid of offending the bishop that they would eat almost anything put before them. This issue, however, represents one rotten egg too far for many Labour Members. I believe that the majority of Labour Members are prepared to say, with us, "We like eggs, but we would like one that is primarily not bad, one that is substantial and that is worth waiting for. Take this away and bring us another!"

Stephen Twigg: Lacking a public policy, my shadow chose not to address any of the issues that have been raised in today's debate. I have 10 minutes in which to try to do so. This has been a very constructive debate, and I am pleased to be responding to it on behalf of the Government. We have heard some excellent, thoughtful speeches from both sides of the House.
	Constitutional reform has been one of the greatest achievements of this Government since we were elected in 1997. We have introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the restoration of elected city government in Greater London, opportunities for communities to opt for local, directly elected mayors, the setting up of the Electoral Commission, and legislation going through Parliament at the moment to enable political parties to take positive action to increase the number of women candidates.
	The goal of removing the hereditary principle from the House of Lords is one that this party has striven for since our foundation more than 100 years ago. I remember people saying to me before 1997 that, once elected, we would not proceed with constitutional reform or with the first stage of Lords reform. Well, we did. I remember, once we had completed that first stage, we were told that we would not proceed to the second. Well, we are doing so.
	I welcome the fact that the Conservatives are now engaging with this issue, and that some have converted to the cause of reform. As recently as the 1997 general election, they were still defending the hereditary principle in the upper House of this Parliament, and for 18 continuous years of Conservative government, no proposals for the reform of the second Chamber were introduced.

George Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Twigg: No, I have very little time.
	We are told that the Tories have secret proposals that will be published soon. In today's debate, three Opposition Members called for a fully appointed second Chamber, three called for a wholly or largely elected second Chamber, and the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) wished that we had not started the reform process. Indeed, I got the impression that the hon. Member for Romford hankered for the good old days before the signing of Magna Carta.
	Certain basic principles have been accepted by all speakers in the debate—or certainly by most. They are that there should be two Chambers; that we should remove the hereditary element; that we should assert the pre-eminence of the House of Commons; that we should have a second Chamber that reflects the balance of public opinion between the parties; and that there should not be a fundamental change in the powers of the two Chambers.
	Like many who have spoken today, my personal instincts have been in favour of a fully elected second Chamber—[Hon. Members: "Aah!"] Hold on a sec! I have another six minutes to fill. The argument that persuaded me against that is that an appointed element brings expertise to a second Chamber. A number of speakers on both sides of the House made good arguments about the expertise that comes into the second Chamber via appointment, whether through party appointees or Cross Benchers.

Richard Bacon: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Twigg: No, I have only five minutes.
	Secondly, an appointed element ensures the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, which is very important. Finally, it plays a part in achieving a Parliament that looks more like the public whom we serve and, in particular, in ensuring proper representation of women and diverse communities in our country. No speaker addressed that issue. I would prefer election to secure such representation, but we have only to look around us to see that election alone does not have a track record of delivering proper representation of women and minority ethnic communities. The appointed element may play an important role in that.
	Wakeham proposed in option B that 87 of 550 second Chamber Members be elected, while the White Paper proposes a slightly higher proportion—120 of 600. Nevertheless, I accept that it is clear that Members on both sides of the House strongly support the proposals involving a larger elected element. I take that on board and shall feed it back in, but I want to respond to some specific points during the debate in the Government before bringing proposals before the House.
	A number of Members raised the question of the method of election and spoke in favour of open lists, including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Lords is on record as saying that we have no closed mind on closed lists. This is clearly a matter still to be resolved.
	There is also the question of the length of an elected Member's term and the debate is between the desire for independence as set out in the Wakeham proposals, which suggest a very long term, and the need for those elected to Parliament to be accountable. I think that a 15-year term without the right to stand again would reduce the accountability of the democratically elected element in the second Chamber, so it makes far more sense to have shorter terms for Members with the right to stand for re-election. That is a more democratic way to ensure that there is an elected element in the second Chamber.
	The White Paper raises the issue of indirect representation in the new second Chamber, and various Members made proposals for achieving it. The difficulty is that, although there are Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and a Parliament in Scotland, there is no regional representation in England. However, the proposal is worthy of consideration as the debate moves forward.
	Let me briefly address the question of prime ministerial patronage and appointees to the new second Chamber. The Government carefully considered Lord Wakeham's proposal that party political appointments be made by an independent commission, but we do not believe it appropriate for party political rather than independent representatives to be appointed in that way.
	There has been a great deal of talk in the debate about prime ministerial patronage, but the proposals in the White Paper represent a significant reduction in those powers: the elected element would be 20 per cent., 20 per cent. would be appointed by an independent commission and about 55 per cent. would be appointed by parties, with most of those being appointed by opposition parties.
	Currently, the majority of new Members of the Lords are directly appointed by the Prime Minister, so the proposals represent a significant reduction in the powers of patronage. [Interruption.] I recognise from the noises coming from behind that it does not go quite as far as many of my colleagues would like.
	This is an important debate and, as many people have said, it is about not just the future of the other place, but the reform of Parliament itself. The purpose of reform, both here through my right hon. Friend's modernisation proposals and in the Lords, is to create a Parliament that is more effective and more representative of the people we serve. The 59 per cent. turnout last year is a clear warning to us all: renewing our political institutions is not some sideshow and it strikes at the heart of why we are here in Parliament.
	This Government are listening to the concerns expressed here today and in the other place yesterday. The public consultation will continue for another three weeks and the debate is an important contribution to it. I am grateful to all Members who took part.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
	That, following the Order of 20th November 2000, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Edward O'Hara be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Missile Defence

Valerie Davey: The petition of the Bristol and West region of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, to which I add my support, declares:
	We believe that an attempt by the United States to build a missile defence system will lead to increased instability and provoke a new nuclear arms race, are alarmed at the likely involvement of facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, and that a petition of over 520 signatures expressing similar concerns has been presented to the Prime Minister. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to allow the use of the bases in a United States missile defence system. And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

ARMLEY (ASBESTOS COMPENSATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

John Battle: In October 1995, two families from Leeds, one itself a victim of deadly mesothelioma, won a ground-breaking compensation case against Turner and Newall. They proved that the company was the responsible owner of the old J. W. Roberts Armley factory that had polluted our neighbourhood.
	In earlier debates here, since I first raised the issue in November 1988, I have also raised the profile of the struggle for justice for mesothelioma victims from Turner and Newall—a company that initially refused to admit it had anything to do with the J. W. Roberts factory. We showed that it owned the factory. Turner and Newall then declined to release any documents or records, arguing that it could not find them or that they did not exist. Despite denials for four years, and court orders and appeals, the company was forced to release more than 27,000 documents and records, a few weeks before the crucial trial began in 1994.
	I recall the words of Mr. Justice Holland at that trial, in the Leeds High Court. In 1995, he took the unusual step of criticising the company for
	"using any means possible, legitimate or otherwise . . . to wear"
	the plaintiffs
	"down by attrition".
	That is from the transcript.
	The judge awarded Mrs. Margereson and Mrs. Hancock £115,000 damages between them against Turner and Newall, ruling that although mesothelioma could not have been foreseen as a consequence of the asbestos dust that was blown out of the factory into the neighbouring streets until it closed in 1958, some form of pulmonary injury should have been anticipated by the company and it was therefore liable.
	We had won the case—or we thought that we had won. Needless to say, Turner and Newall immediately appealed against the judgment, claiming disingenuously that it was "unsound" on the basis that a distinction could be made between "guilty" and "not guilty" bits of dust—claiming that it was just some kind of lottery when people inhaled.
	That grotesque appeal, as Geoffrey Tweedale called it in his scholarly account "Magic Mineral to Killer Dust: Turner and Newall and the Asbestos Hazard", was thrown out of court, but it was another delaying tactic that bought the company a bit more time before they paid out to the plaintiffs. Tragically June Hancock died in 1997, not many months after her long heroic struggle through the courts.
	Throughout the case, Turner and Newall has striven to delay and hold back future claims, trying to deny other victims the chance to claim a precedent; but the case was won, and it was forced to pay compensation.
	Mr. Justice Holland referred to attrition. In 1995, I thought that the courts had settled it; but the war of attrition against the victims, sadly, is still going on.
	Turner and Newall was taken over by an American company, Federal Mogul, in 1998. On 1 October last year, Federal Mogul filed for voluntary chapter 11 reorganisation in the United States and for administration under the Insolvency Act 1986. From that moment, Turner and Newall ceased to respond to or pay out any asbestos disease-related claims. Even cheques issued for cases settled before 1 October have bounced according to solicitors, and one former employee, 74-year-old Thomas Harrison, deposited a settlement cheque for £38,000 that was returned cancelled.
	More than 60 Armley neighbourhood cases since 1995 have been completely settled through the courts; some are still in the process of settlement and some are still waiting to be filed. In other words, hundreds of cases are still outstanding. Turner and Newall now refuses to deal with them.
	Federal Mogul, the parent company, employs 52,000 people in 25 countries and owns famous brands such as Champion, Glyco and Ferrodo. It is far from being bankrupt. Third quarter sales in 2001 were more than $1,289 million, and sales for this financial year are likely to be more than $5 billion. According to the brilliantly researched British Asbestos Newsletter, issue no. 45—I pay tribute to Laurie Kazan Allen's tireless and selfless campaigning on the matter—Federal Mogul's newly elected chairman and executive officer, Frank Macher, claims that despite the insolvency
	"Federal Mogul will continue to serve its existing customers, fulfil current contracts and secure new business."
	On 15 October, a corporate press release boasted that Federal Mogul had secured four new contracts, valued at £20 million, from auto manufacturers and suppliers. The chairman reiterated:
	"Federal Mogul is continuing business operations without interruption and with the full support of our major customers."
	On 11 February, there will be a meeting of the creditors of J. W. Roberts and of Turner and Newall to carry that process of administration forward. Only the creditors can attend to stake their claim. The meeting is closed and is aimed at working towards a long-term global solution to all the company's asbestos claims. It is likely that the UK cases will simply be overlooked at this stage and the result will be legal paralysis for many years.
	In a written reply recently, the Economic Secretary stated:
	"Since 1 October, Turner and Newall have been operating under an Administration Order and as a consequence all legal actions against the company have been stayed. They are continuing to trade. We understand the driver for the administration is to crystallise asbestos claims in the US and UK in a consistent and fair manner so the company can arrange for their payments."
	I submit that "crystallise" is an infelicitous choice of word in this case, and it can take years for crystals to form. It can also take years to allocate funds to pay out claims through administration procedures. What will the victims be left with?
	The Economic Secretary's reply continued:
	"The administrators are exploring ways of trying to resolve this problem, and if necessary will seek direction from the courts".—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 330-31W.]
	But in the Armley cases, we have already had crystal clear direction from the courts. The unequivocal order was, "Pay up now." In other words, the resort to administration looks like a rearguard action of complex corporate gamesmanship to avoid responsibility for paying out legitimate court-won compensation awards. It is not therefore a question of establishing liability, but simply of whether the company has the means to pay.
	Federal Mogul cannot claim that Turner and Newall had no money to pay its compensation debts. If it had remained a UK company, Turner and Newall would without doubt have continued to pay out. Why, we are entitled to ask, was Turner and Newall made insolvent? It was a perfectly viable company in the UK. What information was presented to the judge in arguing the case for administration? Could it be that there is a massive question mark over Turner and Newall's insurance cover? Any lack of insurance cover must be of major concern.
	In the past, there were doubts about insurance cover. I have the minutes of the board meeting of Turner and Newall on 10 February 1977, which spelled out that it recognised it was not covered. The minutes say:
	"When the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act came into force we found ourselves in some difficulty."
	They key question is whether the company has been properly covered since that time.
	As I understand it, in 1996—after the trial—an insurance policy package was agreed with a consortium of European reinsurers to cap Turner and Newall's asbestos liabilities. The company paid for £500 million of cover, which kicked in after it had paid out a certain amount—I think it was some £373 million—from its own funds. This top-up cover was announced after the verdict on the Margereson-Hancock case in Armley. We are entitled to ask what has happened to that fund. What will happen to it now that we are in the administration process?
	At the time, the chairman of Turner and Newall, Sir Colin Hope, said:
	"The proposals are intended to bring to an end the uncertainty surrounding the asbestos issue that has overshadowed the group for so many years. Together with the provision already in the balance sheet we now have over £1 billion of cover—about three times the central estimates of the present value of liabilities."
	Why do my constituents and other victims not now have access to that insurance fund with their claims? Should they not have first claim on that fund? They have gone through the court procedures to get justice. They have legal proof that they are entitled to compensation for negligence, and they ought to receive first call on that insurance money immediately. Where is it? Why cannot it be ring-fenced and made available?
	More recently, Turner and Newall has claimed to be "self-insured", or covered by what I understand is called captive insurance—its own in-house arrangements. According to solicitors, before the administration order on Turner and Newall was approved, the company paid out the asbestos claims itself. The cheques were issued by Turner and Newall, not by an insurance company. That is unusual. In other words, the company's insurance cover is indeed like murky water—far from transparent.
	Furthermore, questions about that insurance cover have now been ruled out of order as commercially confidential. Even under administration, why cannot the insurers be traced, named and contacted by the victims' representatives? This issue is crucial: has Turner and Newall provided proper insurance cover for itself, or not?
	If it has not, why has the company not been investigated for failing to comply with the law? Why is it allowed to sidestep its legal insurance responsibilities? Did it ever apply to Government Departments for exemption from insurance? If it does have insurance, why are payments to those owed compensation now being denied?
	Why should funds set aside to pay out to victims who take the company to court and win compensation be held back now in administration? Surely that is a defiance of the legal process for justice. As it is, lawyers representing victims cannot contact the insurer. Turner and Newall claims that it is self-insured and it is in administration. This is tantamount to an insurance self-protection racket.
	Turner and Newall should have proper cover and should be able to pay. If not, it seems that we are facing devices to reassure investors rather than to protect and compensate victims. No wonder the insurance industry weekly journal—called the Post—is proclaiming in its headlines "Asbestos purse closed". This is not about benevolent funds and donations; it is about justice, and justice that has already been won against the company in the courts. Obviously, the war of attrition goes on; resisting the pay-outs to reassure the funding markets seems to be the priority.
	I wish now to put some specific questions to the Minister of which I have given her notice. At the time Turner and Newall was purchased by Federal Mogul, were any investigations undertaken by Government Departments into the terms of the sale? With regard to insurance, although several solicitors representing asbestos plaintiffs have attempted over the years to see copies of the certificates issued to the company under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, they have not succeeded. Why is it not possible for claimants' representatives to see the certificates? Why cannot we know about the history of Turner and Newall's employer's liability coverage? Has the Health and Safety Executive over the years been satisfied that Turner and Newall has had insurance that is compliant with legislation? Who were the insurers? What were the dates and nature of the policies? Can the insurance information be put in the Library of the House of Commons so that I can see where my constituents stand?
	Does the arrangement under which a company is self-insured and has a so-called captive insurer comply with the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969? Finally, under the administration order, why cannot insurance funds be ring-fenced so that UK victims of UK companies who have won their cases in court can have first call on it? Is it lawful to bounce compensation cheques when a company is still trading? Is there any way for funds to be released so that claims can be paid out in cases that have been won?
	I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give detailed, chapter-and-verse answers to all those questions, which serve to highlight the issues. However, I should like her to tell me that her Department is to set up an immediate public inquiry into all the issues arising from the application to put J. W Roberts and Turner and Newall plc into administration in the UK.
	The effect of that action has been to prevent victims from getting justice. A public inquiry is needed to unlock any funds specifically set aside now, as asbestos victims are both vulnerable and totally innocent. Mesothelioma means that they die of the worst form of cancer imaginable. They do not bring that on themselves, and they deserve compensation. Tragically, those victims do not have years to live and cannot afford to wait.
	If a company such as Federal Mogul has found a way of using administration and bankruptcy procedures to ditch its asbestos liabilities and to refuse to pay anything more to victims, that is a scandal that the Government must address. Making the polluters pay obviously means not only that responsibility must be proved, which we have done, and that the moral and legal arguments must be won—we have done that too; it now means taking on the high-level, international corporate gamesmanship that continues the war of attrition against asbestos victims.
	I shall close with words from the heartfelt letter that I received from Mrs. Hancock's daughter. She wrote:
	"The recent announcement that Federal Mogul has filed for Bankruptcy has, as I am sure you will understand, come as a great shock to myself and the rest of June Hancock's family. To call this a scandal is an understatement and I am writing to urge you to take immediate Parliamentary action on behalf of those innocent victims of Armley who have died, or who are suffering, who will die in the future, as a result of exposure to asbestos that Turner and Newall have been legally held responsible for. My mum battled through her last painful years to achieve legal recourse for compensation for those exposed to environmental asbestos . . . how can it ever be acceptable for a company to ring fence its assets while at the same time using . . . a convenient loophole for washing its hands of its well known asbestos liabilities??? Federal Mogul are clearly very proud that they are 'continuing to serve its existing customers, fulfil current contracts and secure new business'. What about the human suffering? I know, sadly, too well the pain and grief caused by the deadly disease mesothelioma because I have lost my Mum and Grandma to it . . . victims cannot be left in the position of not being able to take legal action, is that not a violation of one's Human Rights?
	The situation must be addressed by your Government now, and I would ask you to use your position and influence to bring this local, national and international disgrace to the forefront of the political agenda."
	This is a struggle for a just society that must be won. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to move the whole machinery of Government to see that justice is done as well.

Melanie Johnson: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on securing the debate, and on the way in which he continues to represent his constituents in this most important and serious matter. The Government fully understand the concerns that he raises. Those who suffer from this dreadful condition have my utmost sympathy, as do those who may have come into contact with asbestos in the past and who still live with the uncertainty that they may be affected in the future by its potentially lethal legacy. I fully recognise the anxieties of those affected, and I welcome this opportunity to respond to the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
	My hon. Friend spoke about Turner and Newall. I can confirm that, on 1 October 2001, partners of the accountancy firm Kroll Buchler Phillips were appointed by the court as administrators of 133 out of 182 of the Federal Mogul UK group of companies, as part of a global rescue plan in parallel with chapter 11 proceedings in the United States of America. The company known as Turner and Newall Ltd. is the largest trading company in this UK group of companies.
	The Federal Mogul group, which I will refer to as the FM group, is an automotive and vehicle parts manufacturer which carries on business from approximately 295 locations in 53 countries. It is the sole-source provider of one or more critical components for most automobiles produced in the USA and Europe. The business, as my hon. Friend says, is indeed profitable. Global turnover for 2000 was approximately US$6 billion, with 31 per cent. of the total sales made in Europe. The UK group of companies had a turnover in the year to 31 December 2000 of approximately £400 million. It currently employs about 4,500 people.
	I understand that the FM group's involvement in the UK commenced, to a significant extent, with the acquisition of Turner and Newall Ltd. in November 1997. That acquisition greatly increased the FM group's exposure to asbestos-related claims from claimants in both the USA and the UK. It is my understanding that those actual and contingent asbestos-related liabilities are threatening the solvency of the FM group. As of 30 June 2001, the FM group estimated its future total asbestos- related liability at US$1.6 billion.
	The administration order has been made for the purpose of achieving one or more of the following—the survival of the company and the whole or any part of its undertaking as a going concern, the approval of an arrangement or compromise with creditors, and/or better realisation of the company's assets than would be achieved on a winding-up.
	Administration is a collective insolvency procedure involving all creditors and giving all creditors a say. Proposals are put to creditors for their approval in the initial stages. Creditors also have ongoing rights during the course of the administration procedure. They may set up a committee to represent them, for example, and the committee may require the administrator to attend its meetings to give it information.
	The creditors also have the power to apply to the court if they consider that the company's affairs are being managed by the administrator in a manner that is unfair or prejudicial. In this case, the administrators of the UK group consider that it is in the best interests of the creditors that the companies should survive so that they can pay their debts from future income—as I have sketched out, there is clear future income and profit in this case—and that the companies should continue to be managed as a group.
	In consultation with the administrators, the FM group intends to commence discussions in relation to the development of an agreed global plan or reorganisation, designed to be approved by all classes of creditors. It is expected that this plan will provide a mechanism for managing the asbestos liabilities and propose an arrangement for payment or compromise of all claims.
	I am told that the FM group decided to file for chapter 11 protection in the USA because of a growing number of asbestos-related law suits in which the plaintiffs claim to have suffered injury owing to exposure to products containing asbestos. In most cases, the defendants are companies that were acquired by the FM group through merger and acquisition.
	In the USA, those members of the FM group that have the bulk of the asbestos liabilities, including Turner and Newall, are defendants in more than 300,000 pending asbestos-related personal injury claims, as of 30 June last year. Additionally, Federal Mogul Corporation, as the current corporate parent of these entities, is named in certain of these law suits, as are several other companies in the FM group. Certain members of the FM group, particularly Turner and Newall, are also defendants in a substantial number of asbestos-related actions in the UK.
	I make these points because I understand that the increasing amount of litigation has been due to a number of factors, including the filing of chapter 11 petitions by numerous other parties alleged to be potentially responsible for the injuries suffered by asbestos plaintiffs; many of the former are co-defendants with the FM group in numerous lawsuits. The resulting stay of litigation against such parties has placed increased financial pressure on the group in the form of higher settlement demands from plaintiffs as well as efforts to force it to cover the contributions of now bankrupt co-defendants in existing settlement agreements.
	As I said, as of 30 June 2001, the FM group estimated its total asbestos-related liability at $1.6 billion for claims pending and those that can reasonably be expected to be asserted in the future, with $350 million of such liability payable within the following 12 months. The FM group further estimated that more than $900 million of that amount would not be covered by insurance.
	The point of going through the detail is to show that, on that basis, it is not difficult to see that the cost of the litigation could overwhelm the FM group. I am told that the magnitude of the litigation left it with no realistic alternative but to seek reorganisation under chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in the United States and administration under the Insolvency Act 1986 in the United Kingdom.
	I understand my hon. Friend's concern and his arguments about attrition and the history of the case. However, there has been a change and I have set out the circumstances that now face those who are trying to achieve their just compensation.
	The costs faced by the FM group are greater owing to the approach adopted by the US legal system. It allows individuals to receive compensation even though they are not and may never become ill—there is a marked difference between the US and the UK, as here, only those who are ill receive compensation. Furthermore, in the US, the cases of those who show no signs of illness are grouped with those who have been diagnosed and already show signs, in the hope that juries will sympathise with and award compensation to all, which cannot happen in the UK. Also, large punitive damages to punish a company's activity are awarded in the US even though asbestos production stopped in the early 1970s, which does not happen in the UK. Those factors all drain money away from that available to pay people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses, both in the US and the UK.
	I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend is representing many people who are already suffering the effects of the illness.

John Battle: I appreciate the detail in my hon. Friend's response, but what worries me is that cases won already in Leeds and elsewhere will be swamped by those yet to come in America. Will it be possible for her, perhaps with her officials, to meet the lawyers who represent people who have already won cases, to see if we can find a way through this? Administration can take between two and 11 years and all the people claiming will be dead before they get any further forward.

Melanie Johnson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the urgency for those affected. Initially, I will be happy to meet him and discuss those matters in further detail. He has made a number of points about the nature of administration. The compensation cheques that are already outstanding bounce even though a company can still be trading. When a company goes into administration, all payments to creditors are stopped. That is a feature of the administrative arrangements.
	I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the fact that the administration could take a long time, but we believe that it is in the best interests of all those with outstanding claims for the company to continue to trade, and that a way is found through administration for that to happen.
	I cannot say much about the insurance position, which is extremely complex. My hon. Friend endeavoured to sketch out some of that. The legal specialists are working hard to resolve it. There are a number of possibilities and I am assured that the administrators will make a formal announcement as soon as they can. The Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 made it mandatory for certain firms to take out policies when it came into effect in 1972. I understand that Turner and Newall has assured the administrators that it has always complied with its obligations in that regard. The administrators are working hard to establish the full position as regards both employer's and public liability insurance.
	I would like to restate that the Government understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed in the debate about those who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the group is profitable and successful—I believe that we have both said so—and that the interests of claimants will not be served by driving it into liquidation.
	The approach adopted by the FM group seems to us the most sensible in the circumstances, but what is important is that the administrators and those representing the interests of all concerned get on with the job quickly. With that in mind, I have asked my officials in the Department's insolvency service to keep me in close touch with the progress of the case, and in response to the arguments that he has made, I invite my hon. Friend to come and discuss further with me in the Department the aspects to which he wants to draw attention.
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.